I'm unaware that I ever made the argument that Obama should no longer be allowed to make political statements. If you could show me where I did I would be much obliged
The article you quoted is making that argument. It is explicitly claiming that Obama's political statement are tacit to ordering the IRS to unjustly investigate Mr. Vandersloot, and that his statements are therefore indicative of operating without absolute integrity.
I think it is fair comment to say that publicly slurring individuals who is donating to your opponent, using derogatory names for political rivals, implying that bodies with differing political views are under foreign influence and implying that they have something to hide (all seemingly without evidence) could all very easily been seen to be breaches of integrity, and not what most people would consider "political statements". Especially when running for the highest office in the land.
Wait, you're a recent immigrant right? If so that would explain why you're so upset.
All of those things are par for the course in American politics.
probably isn't beneficial to society at all, but it doesn't reduce the value or impact of free speech.
So there is no point in silencing it then.
It starts with good intentions. Then its silencing your opposition.
Yes, you're right, there is no point in silencing anyone. Which is why no one has suggested that. All azazel did was argue that there's speech that isn't beneficial for society, not that anyone should be silenced. That's the strawman Fraz set up and ran with.
I actually didn't see that he said that. If he did awesome.
dogma wrote: The article you quoted is making that argument. It is explicitly claiming that Obama's political statement are tacit to ordering the IRS to unjustly investigate Mr. Vandersloot, and that his statements are therefore indicative of operating without absolute integrity.
So public smears, name calling are now all political statements? I'm sure school teachers are now trembling in their boots because they can't tell off Little Timmy for saying Sarah is a "Poopy head" as that is clearly now political speech.
If you think it is acceptable for public figures to name call, and make baseless accusations that is your prerogative. Most people expect somewhat better conduct from their elected representatives.
dogma wrote: Wait, you're a recent immigrant right? If so that would explain why you're so upset.
All of those things are par for the course in American politics.
So rather than actually deal with my arguments (a recurring theme for you) you dismiss them out of hand, and decide to play the player rather than the ball. Nothing like keeping it classy.
dogma wrote: The article you quoted is making that argument. It is explicitly claiming that Obama's political statement are tacit to ordering the IRS to unjustly investigate Mr. Vandersloot, and that his statements are therefore indicative of operating without absolute integrity.
So public smears, name calling are now all political statements?
In American politics, pretty much, yes. Always have been.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I'm sure school teachers are now trembling in their boots because they can't tell off Little Timmy for saying Sarah is a "Poopy head" as that is clearly now political speech.
Only if "Poopy-Headed" Sarah is running for an elected position, like that wimp, Bush or lots of more recent examples.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:If you think it is acceptable for public figures to name call, and make baseless accusations that is your prerogative. Most people expect somewhat better conduct from their elected representatives.
Thinking it is acceptable and whether or not it is currently so are two different things, which you should not automatically conflate.
The term political statement is used to refer to any act or non-verbal form of communication that is intended to influence a decision to be made for or by a political party.
So if accusing donors of wrong doing is a legitimate form of political speech why was there uproar over Obama being called a liar by Joe Wilson?
The term political statement is used to refer to any act or non-verbal form of communication that is intended to influence a decision to be made for or by a political party.
So if accusing donors of wrong doing is a legitimate form of political speech why was there uproar over Obama being called a liar by Joe Wilson?
Because he shouted it during a speech in direct violation of the rules of the floor and legislative decorum.
I think we may just have to agree to disagree on what exactly constitutes political speech, and what is suitable behaviour for those in elected office.
No sense in getting distracted from the real issue, which is the very serious accusations against the IRS.
The New York Times made an interesting observation:
The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.
I'm pretty sure that these "senior Treasury officials" are not strangers to the President. These officials knew five months before the election.
They are not "low-level" flunkies...
Obama's claim that he "didn't know" until last Friday is looking... a bit of a stretch.
Maybe Obama was too busy campaigning?
edit: added missing link.
Whembly: Could you please stop altering font sizes? Every time you do it, my eyes automatically drift away from your post, because I prefer to read things that do not resemble geocities websites from 1996
azazel the cat wrote: Whembly: Could you please stop altering font sizes? Every time you do it, my eyes automatically drift away from your post, because I prefer to read things that do not resemble geocities websites from 1996
Obama's claim that he "didn't know" until last Friday is looking... a bit of a stretch.
I think your claim that Obama is best friends with every "senior official" is a bit of a stretch.
It definitely seems like you've already decided how this story is going to go and you're just cramming anything in there that looks like it will link the pieces together.
Obama's claim that he "didn't know" until last Friday is looking... a bit of a stretch.
I think your claim that Obama is best friends with every "senior official" is a bit of a stretch.
It definitely seems like you've already decided how this story is going to go and you're just cramming anything in there that looks like it will link the pieces together.
Where did I say they're best friends?
I only pointing out that they're not "low level employees" as it was originally reported.
Obama's claim that he "didn't know" until last Friday is looking... a bit of a stretch.
I think your claim that Obama is best friends with every "senior official" is a bit of a stretch.
It definitely seems like you've already decided how this story is going to go and you're just cramming anything in there that looks like it will link the pieces together.
Where did I say they're best friends?
I only pointing out that they're not "low level employees" as it was originally reported.
There are tens of thousands of "senior officials" in the federal government.
There are tens of thousands of "senior officials" in the federal government.
?
That many general counsel of the Treasury Department?
o.O
You said obama must know them because they are "senior official"s.
There are way too many senior officials for Obama to know all of them. "Senior Official" could be middle management.
Sorry... the report in the NYT (and other sources) said it was the General Counsel of the Treasury. That's what I referring to "senior officials".
Now... honestly, I suspect the General Counsels from all the departments don't really report to the President. But, they certainly report to the Department head (Lew for Treasury??).
Bob Woodward on Friday said the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups had “not yet” risen to the level of Watergate.
“It’s a big mess, obviously,” Woodward said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “I know there have been these comparisons to Watergate. I would say not yet.”
The Washington Post reporter who pursued Watergate did compare the Benghazi controversy to the story that marked his career.
Woodward said the scrubbing of administration talking points in the days after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reminded him of Watergate. (whembly: !!!)
“I have it to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts of the conversations and he personally went through them and said, ‘let’s not tell this, let’s not show this,’ ” Woodward said. “I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue. As people keep saying, four people were killed.”
Woodward said the federal government’s talking points as a whole should be done away with.
“Talking points, as we know, are like legal briefs. They’re an argument on one side. We need to get rid of talking points and they need to put out statements or papers that are truth documents.”
The Obama administration over the last two days has tried to get out front of a series of controversies that threaten to sink Obama’s second term.
The White House has released new emails on the internal Benghazi discussions, and Obama demanded the resignation of the acting head of the IRS. On Thursday, he appointed a longtime budget official to serving as the new acting commissioner.
Some Republicans have compared Obama and his administration to President Nixon, who resigned over Watergate.
So far, there has been no evidence that Obama knew about the IRS controversy before it became public a week ago. Obama on Thursday said he only learned about it from news reports.
Woodward has clashed on numerous occasions with the White House over the last year. His book, The Price of Politics, painted an unflattering portrait of Obama’s leadership during the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations.
And late last year, Woodward insinuated that a “very senior person” at the White House had threatened him over his criticism of Obama’s handling of the sequester. The email was later revealed to be a benign correspondence with White House economic adviser Gene Sperling, and Woodward later walked the allegations back.
The inspector general gave Republicans some fodder Friday when he divulged that he informed the Treasury’s general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.’s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin “shortly after,” he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.
It does go on to say though that he didn't tell the officials of his conclusions that the targeting had been improper. We'll see what other revelations come to light over the course of the investigation.
I'm sure school teachers are now trembling in their boots because they can't tell off Little Timmy for saying Sarah is a "Poopy head" as that is clearly now political speech.
Children have never been accorded the full right to free speech, so I highly doubt it. Moreover, there is a massive difference between the actual restriction of speech by way of legal force, and a political organization publicly calling out a person, or group of people, that it does not agree with.
If you think it is acceptable for public figures to name call, and make baseless accusations that is your prerogative. Most people expect somewhat better conduct from their elected representatives.
Not in the United States. In fact, it is often the case that public officials garner a great deal of support as a direct result of name calling and baseless accusations. Obama himself was the target of many regarding the validity of his birth certificate, and many public officials developed a good deal of support for their campaigns as a result.
I would further argue that the arguments made in the two WSJ journal columns Whembly cited (one of which you also cited) are predicated, in large part, on journalists attempting to secure their jobs by way of building the readership of the website and their columns by way of creating controversy where none exists. In essence they are capitalizing on name calling and baseless accusations in order to make money in much the same way that a politician might do so in order to generate more political support.
So rather than actually deal with my arguments (a recurring theme for you) you dismiss them out of hand, and decide to play the player rather than the ball. Nothing like keeping it classy.
I've directly addressed your argument several times, at this juncture all I can do is attempt to discern why you seem so emotionally committed to your position that you cannot recognize this fact.
The term political statement is used to refer to any act or non-verbal form of communication that is intended to influence a decision to be made for or by a political party.
Its also used to reference a statement made in a political context, and political speech in general.
So if accusing donors of wrong doing is a legitimate form of political speech why was there uproar over Obama being called a liar by Joe Wilson?
Congress is permitted to establish it own procedural rules (and therefore punish its members at discretion), a privilege which is written into the Constitution.
As to why there was public uproar: the same reason you seem to be angry about Obama's own statements. You don't like what was said.
The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.
I'm pretty sure that these "senior Treasury officials" are not strangers to the President. These officials knew five months before the election.
They are not "low-level" flunkies...
Obama's claim that he "didn't know" until last Friday is looking... a bit of a stretch.
Maybe Obama was too busy campaigning?
edit: added missing link.
Couple things:
1. When the IG told someone they were launching an investigation is meaningless. The actual important time frame is when they deliver their report, which may or may not contain any actual findings. In this case, it likely did. But it's when THAT was given to "senior officials" that is important, not when he said he was launching the investigation. Every department and agency has an Office of the Inspector General (OIG). It's basically Internal Affairs for government agencies, and they launch investigations literally all the time. That's what they do, it's their job. Again, the important part is the final report. Do we know when/if that was finished and handed in?
2. You mention in another post (that I neglected to multi-quote apparently) that these "senior officials" was General Counsel. Like the OIG, most agencies maintain and Office of General Counsel (OGC). This is basically a collection of lawyers who legal expertise pertains to the subjects at hands. ATR would have business specialists and the like, although each OGC does maintain a cadre of non-specialists. These guys are indeed low level flunkies. These guys rarely, if ever, go near the Agency secretaries, let alone the POTUS. For OIG to come to OGC and say "hey, we're investigating x because we suspect y" isn't exactly uncommon. OGC's main purpose is to make sure agency staff is operating within the confines of the law, and to answer legal questions about government policies and procedure. These aren't the guys who end up in court rooms at all.
So pretty much that article is largely a non-story, dressed up and using specific buzz words, but with no actual oomph behind it. The IRS OIG went to the IRS OGC and let them know they thought something was being done incorrectly. This is, even despite the scandal, not news and most certainly not something that goes all the way to the POTUS. Well, not unless the OIG report is exceedingly scathing, but is is surprisingly rare that something actually requires expedition through the POTUS himself.
To draw a (probably crappy) comparison to the private sector, it's not like the CEO of a bank is informed every time a bank teller somewhere is caught sneaking change. The matter is usually handled locally and without the need to "take it all the way to the top".
The Treasury Department’s inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service’s screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.
I'm pretty sure that these "senior Treasury officials" are not strangers to the President. These officials knew five months before the election.
They are not "low-level" flunkies...
Obama's claim that he "didn't know" until last Friday is looking... a bit of a stretch.
Maybe Obama was too busy campaigning?
edit: added missing link.
Couple things:
1. When the IG told someone they were launching an investigation is meaningless. The actual important time frame is when they deliver their report, which may or may not contain any actual findings. In this case, it likely did. But it's when THAT was given to "senior officials" that is important, not when he said he was launching the investigation. Every department and agency has an Office of the Inspector General (OIG). It's basically Internal Affairs for government agencies, and they launch investigations literally all the time. That's what they do, it's their job. Again, the important part is the final report. Do we know when/if that was finished and handed in?
2. You mention in another post (that I neglected to multi-quote apparently) that these "senior officials" was General Counsel. Like the OIG, most agencies maintain and Office of General Counsel (OGC). This is basically a collection of lawyers who legal expertise pertains to the subjects at hands. ATR would have business specialists and the like, although each OGC does maintain a cadre of non-specialists. These guys are indeed low level flunkies. These guys rarely, if ever, go near the Agency secretaries, let alone the POTUS. For OIG to come to OGC and say "hey, we're investigating x because we suspect y" isn't exactly uncommon. OGC's main purpose is to make sure agency staff is operating within the confines of the law, and to answer legal questions about government policies and procedure. These aren't the guys who end up in court rooms at all.
So pretty much that article is largely a non-story, dressed up and using specific buzz words, but with no actual oomph behind it. The IRS OIG went to the IRS OGC and let them know they thought something was being done incorrectly. This is, even despite the scandal, not news and most certainly not something that goes all the way to the POTUS. Well, not unless the OIG report is exceedingly scathing, but is is surprisingly rare that something actually requires expedition through the POTUS himself.
To draw a (probably crappy) comparison to the private sector, it's not like the CEO of a bank is informed every time a bank teller somewhere is caught sneaking change. The matter is usually handled locally and without the need to "take it all the way to the top".
I've just been popping in every now and then checking this thread and the comments on both sides remind me of when Watergate was going on.
The people for Nixon were saying it was really nothing and that either he didn't know or that every other politician did similar things.
The people against him were likening it to the police state closing in.
I am going to be really interested in seeing how this all plays out because it's like history is repeating itself.
Indicator this may have started earlier than possible.
CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) -
Continuing our exclusive coverage of the IRS scandal, FOX19 has obtained documents of a fifth Cincinnati IRS agent who reportedly came after a pro-life group in 2009.
The group was asked about prayer meetings, and the content of signs held up outside Planned Parenthood.
According to documents obtained by FOX19, the group in question is 'Coalition for Life', a group based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Coalition for Life stated it was 'organized for charitable, religious and educational activities', all of which would allow it to qualify as an exempt organization under 501(c)(3) status.
Over 150 pages of back-and-forth took place in 2009, prior to the dates given by the IRS for when so called 'rogue' agents began targeting conservative groups.
Testimony in Washington on Friday claimed it began in 2010 after a surge of Tea Party and Liberty groups began seeking 501(c)(4) status.
"In 2010, the inappropriate criteria that singled out organizations for tax exempt status by name was developed by what office, and where are those employees located?" Steven Miller was asked during a hearing on Friday, the former acting IRS Commissioner.
"For the most part, they are located in Cincinnati," he replied.
So, this latest revelation does not correlate with the timeline given in Washington as testimony on Friday.
CptJake wrote: Indicator this may have started earlier than possible.
CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) -
Continuing our exclusive coverage of the IRS scandal, FOX19 has obtained documents of a fifth Cincinnati IRS agent who reportedly came after a pro-life group in 2009.
The group was asked about prayer meetings, and the content of signs held up outside Planned Parenthood.
According to documents obtained by FOX19, the group in question is 'Coalition for Life', a group based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Coalition for Life stated it was 'organized for charitable, religious and educational activities', all of which would allow it to qualify as an exempt organization under 501(c)(3) status.
Over 150 pages of back-and-forth took place in 2009, prior to the dates given by the IRS for when so called 'rogue' agents began targeting conservative groups.
Testimony in Washington on Friday claimed it began in 2010 after a surge of Tea Party and Liberty groups began seeking 501(c)(4) status.
"In 2010, the inappropriate criteria that singled out organizations for tax exempt status by name was developed by what office, and where are those employees located?" Steven Miller was asked during a hearing on Friday, the former acting IRS Commissioner.
"For the most part, they are located in Cincinnati," he replied.
So, this latest revelation does not correlate with the timeline given in Washington as testimony on Friday.
CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) -
Coalition for Life stated it was 'organized for charitable, religious and educational activities', all of which would allow it to qualify as an exempt organization under 501(c)(3) status.
But would also prohibit it from engaging in any form of political activity, hence:
The group was asked about prayer meetings, and the content of signs held up outside Planned Parenthood.
A healthcare provider has sued the Internal Revenue Service and 15 of its agents, charging they wrongfully seized 60 million medical records from 10 million Americans.
The name of the provider is not yet known, United Press International said. But Courthouse News Service said the suit claims the agency violated the Fourth Amendment in 2011, when agents executed a search warrant for financial data on one employee – and that led to the seizure of information on 10 million, including state judges.
The search warrant did not specify that the IRS could take medical information, UPI said. And information technology officials warned the IRS about the potential to violate medical privacy laws before agents executed the warrant, the complaint said, as reported by UPI.
“Despite knowing that these medical records were not within the scope of the warrant, defendants threatened to ‘rip’ the servers containing the medical data out of the building if IT personnel would not voluntarily hand them over,” the complaint states, UPI reported.
The White House's chief lawyer learned weeks ago that an audit of the Internal Revenue Service likely would show that agency employees inappropriately targeted conservative groups, a senior White House official said Sunday.
The White House's chief lawyer was told in the middle of April that an audit of the IRS would show IRS employees inappropriately targeted conservative groups. Peter Nicholas has details. Photo: Getty Images
That disclosure has prompted a debate over whether the president should have been notified at that time.
In the week of April 22, the Office of the White House Counsel and its head, Kathryn Ruemmler, were told by Treasury Department attorneys that an inspector general's report was nearing completion, the White House official said. In that conversation, Ms. Ruemmler learned that "a small number of line IRS employees had improperly scrutinized certain…organizations by using words like 'tea party' and 'patriot,' " the official said.
President Barack Obama said last week he learned about the controversy at the same time as the public, on May 10, when an IRS official revealed it to a conference of lawyers. The president's statement drew criticism, focusing attention on his management style and whether he has kept himself sufficiently informed about the agencies under his authority.
Others, including veterans of previous scandals, said the counsel—whose role is to advise the president on all legal matters concerning his job and the White House—was right to avoid telling Mr. Obama about the audit's early findings. Doing so could have caused a new storm by creating the appearance of meddling in an independent investigation that hadn't yet concluded, former officials said.
The White House, which declined to make Ms. Ruemmler available for comment Sunday, wouldn't say whether she shared the information with anyone else in the senior administration staff.
The new detail doesn't help answer some fundamental questions about the IRS scandal, including how it began and who, if anyone, in the administration was aware of the severity of the inspector general's probe before last November's presidential election.
Instead, it focuses attention on the White House's handling of the matter, which has blown up into the kind of crisis that could persist.
When findings are so potentially damaging, the president should immediately be informed, said Lanny Davis, who served as a special counsel to President Bill Clinton.
White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer speaking on CBS's 'Face the Nation' on Sunday.
Of the controversies dogging Mr. Obama, including the terrorist assault in Benghazi, Libya, and the Justice Department's seizure of phone records of Associated Press journalists, the IRS case "is the most nuclear issue of all," Mr. Davis said. It involves the "misuse of the IRS" and "anyone who knew about this a few weeks ago and didn't tell the president shouldn't be in the White House," Mr. Davis said.
On the Sunday political talk shows, the White House rejected suggestions that the president should have taken action before the inspector general's office released its report May 14, a few days after the probe's findings were disclosed in news accounts.
Dan Pfeiffer, a White House senior adviser, said on NBC that the matter "was handled in the exact appropriate way. As I said, we do not ever do anything to give the appearance of interference in an investigation. What would be an actual scandal would be if we somehow were involved" in such interference.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew was notified in a March 2013 meeting with the Treasury inspector general for the IRS that an audit was "forthcoming," according to the Treasury Department. But at that meeting, the inspector general didn't provide details of his findings, the Treasury said.
Jack Quinn, who served as White House counsel under former President Bill Clinton, said Ms. Ruemmler's office acted correctly in not sharing the information directly with the president.
If she had instead gotten "involved and called people over to the White House for a full briefing to know all the details, you know what we'd be talking about now? We'd be talking about whether she had tried to interfere with the IG's investigation," Mr. Quinn said.
John Podesta, a former White House chief of staff under Mr. Clinton, said: "The worst thing is if you do anything that is perceived to be interfering with an independent investigation" especially if it isn't fully complete. "That gets you in such trouble your head spins."
Republicans are expected to zero in on the question of who in the Obama administration's senior ranks knew about the IRS's targeting of conservative groups, especially before the November election last year.
Republican lawmakers on House oversight committees are pressing the investigation, with more hearings set for this week.
"Exactly who in the administration knew what about the IRS targeting is one of the key outstanding questions," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), chairman of a House oversight committee that plans to hold a hearing Wednesday on the matter, in an emailed statement.
"In waiting so long to address wrongdoing and inform the public, President Obama and his administration seem more preoccupied with having deniability than quickly addressing serious wrongdoing," Mr. Issa added.
In his comments Sunday, Mr. Pfeiffer suggested that more personnel changes could come at the IRS, after last week's ouster of acting commissioner Steven Miller by the president. Mr. Pfeiffer also went on the offensive, saying that White House cooperation with GOP investigators has its limits and that Mr. Obama won't take part in "partisan fishing expeditions."
I can understand not wanting to give the impression of meddling in an ongoing investigation, especially when the facts are being established, but this snippet;
The White House's chief lawyer was told in the middle of April that an audit of the IRS would show IRS employees inappropriately targeted conservative groups.
really makes it sound like the investigation had already concluded, the facts had been established and that conclusions had been drawn- if just not compiled in a formal report.
The Justice Department spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, tracking his movements in and out of the State Department, and seizing two days of Rosen’s personal emails, the Washington Post reported on Monday.
In a chilling move sure to rile defenders of civil liberties, an FBI agent also accused Rosen of breaking the law with behavior that—at least as described—falls inside the bounds of traditional news reporting. (Disclosure: This reporter counts Rosen among his friends.)
The revelations surfaced with President Barack Obama’s administration already under fire for seizing two months of telephone records of reporters and editors at the Associated Press. Obama last week said he makes “no apologies” for investigations into national security-related leaks. The AP's CEO, Gray Pruitt, said Sunday that the seizure was "unconstitutional."
The Obama administration has prosecuted twice as many leakers as all previous administrations combined.
“The president is a strong defender of the First Amendment and a firm believer in the need for the press to be unfettered in its ability to conduct investigative reporting and facilitate a free flow of information,” White House press secretary Jay Carney insisted last week. “He also, of course, recognizes the need for the Justice Department to investigate alleged criminal activity without undue influence.”
The details of the government's strategy against Rosen sound like something out of a spy novel.
Investigators looking into disclosures of sensitive information about North Korea got Rosen’s telephone records and a warrant for his personal emails but also used his State Department security badge to track his movements in and out of that building, the Post reported, citing court documents.
The case began when Rosen reported on June 11, 2009, that U.S. intelligence believed North Korea might respond to tighter United Nations sanctions with new nuclear tests. Rosen reported that the information came from CIA sources inside the hermetic Stalinist state.
Investigators zeroed in on State Department arms expert Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, who was among a small group of intelligence officials to receive a top-secret report on the issue the same day that Rosen's piece ran online.
But FBI agent Reginald Reyes wrote that there was evidence Rosen had broken the law, “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator,” the Post said.
Here is how the Post described Reyes' report:
Using italics for emphasis, Reyes explained how Rosen allegedly used a “covert communications plan” and quoted from an e-mail exchange between Rosen and Kim that seems to describe a secret system for passing along information.
In the exchange, Rosen used the alias “Leo” to address Kim and called himself “Alex,” an apparent reference to Alexander Butterfield, the man best known for running the secret recording system in the Nixon White House, according to the affidavit.
Rosen instructed Kim to send him coded signals on his Google account, according to a quote from his e-mail in the affidavit: “One asterisk means to contact them, or that previously suggested plans for communication are to proceed as agreed; two asterisks means the opposite.”
He also wrote, according to the affidavit: “What I am interested in, as you might expect, is breaking news ahead of my competitors” including “what intelligence is picking up.” And: “I’d love to see some internal State Department analyses.”
The communications system is a bit cloak-and-dagger, but it's not clear from the Washington Post report whether Rosen did anything outside the bounds of traditional reporting. People who know Rosen will smile at the Butterfield reference: The tenacious Fox News reporter is known as a Beatles fanatic, Tom Wolfe devotee and Watergate obsessive.
Considering that a lot of AP reporters were targeted it might be a pretty big stretch to argue that the Fox News reporter was targeted only because he was a Fox News reporter.
Frazzled wrote: Your statement doesn't make sense. It fits the trend of active pursuits of leakers in this administration.
Please keep up with the conversation then.
He makes the argument that the Fox News guy being targeted belongs in the IRS thread because it shows a trend of conservatives being targeted and being singled out.
I told him that the Fox News guy being a trend of being mean to conservatives only makes sense if you ignore the AP event.
Which is why I continue to say that the Fox News reporter story has no place in this thread and has nothing to do with the IRS event and should be included in the AP thread where it would actually be relevant.
Frazzled wrote: Your statement doesn't make sense. It fits the trend of active pursuits of leakers in this administration.
Please keep up with the conversation then.
He makes the argument that the Fox News guy being targeted belongs in the IRS thread because it shows a trend of conservatives being targeted and being singled out.
I told him that the Fox News guy being a trend of being mean to conservatives only makes sense if you ignore the AP event.
Which is why I continue to say that the Fox News reporter story has no place in this thread and has nothing to do with the IRS event and should be included in the AP thread where it would actually be relevant.
No its the same. The administration is going after people who disagree with them.
I don't get all the talk about 'did he know at this date or at that date?' stuff.
That bit actually is a lot like the Benghazi noise to me, whether he knew in one month or the next he couldn't have changed anything about what happened. As far as complaints about government poor practice go "we should have been told a month ago" sounds, to me, to be frankly weak as gak.
And it is, basically, Republicans trying to find some way to connect this scandal to the president, and so far it feels very contrived (it might not end up contrived, of course, there's a long way to go in this thing). But right now the real substance of this is the overtly partisan politics undertaken by civil servants, and the strangely permissive management that uncovered it and then took no real action beyond 'stop it'... after which the employees somewhat predictably went back to doing the same thing.
The issue, so far, is really just about the actions of bureaucrats within the Federal government. But Washington is a political town, and the only wins are political wins. And that means endless speculation on how the President might be tarred attached to this.
The issue, so far, is really just about the actions of bureaucrats within the Federal government. But Washington is a political town, and the only wins are political wins. And that means endless speculation on how the President might be tarred attached to this.
I think it's because the administration is trying to deflect... or, it's appearance.
So... yea, what you just said is the name of the game in DC. It's always been that way...
I'd rather just keep the focus on the IRS and allow Congress to perform it's oversight duties.
Catherine Engelbrecht’s tale has all the markings of a classic conspiracy theory: She says she thinks that because of her peaceful political activity, she and her family was targeted for scrutiny by hostile federal agencies.
Yet as news emerges that the Internal Revenue Service wielded its power to obstruct conservative groups, Catherine’s story becomes credible — and chilling. It also raises questions about whether other federal agencies have used their executive powers to target those deemed political enemies.
Before the Engelbrecht family’s three-year ordeal began, Catherine says, “I had no real expectation or preparation for the blood sport that American politics is.” Sounding weary on the phone, she continues: “It’s all been a through-the-looking-glass experience.”
Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who specializes in representing conservative organizations, says that the Engelbrecht family’s experience is “just the tip of the iceberg. . . . I think there’s definitely a Chicago-politics-style enemies list in this administration, and I think it permeates this branch of the federal government.”
The Engelbrechts were not, until recently, particularly political. They had been busy running a tiny manufacturing plant in Rosenberg, Texas. After years of working for others, Bryan, a trained machinist, wanted to open his own shop, so he saved his earnings, bought a computerized numerical-control machine, which does precision metal-cutting, and began operating out of his garage. “That was about 20 years ago,” he says. “Now, we’re up to about 30 employees.”
For two decades, Bryan and Catherine drove to work in their big truck. Engelbrecht Manufacturing Inc. now operates out of a 20,000-square-foot metal building on the prairie just outside of Houston, where a “semi-pet coyote lives in the field just behind us,” Bryan says. They went back to their country home each night. Stress was rare, and life was good.
But the 2008 elections left Catherine feeling frustrated about the debates, which seemed to be a string of superficial talking points. So she began attending tea-party meetings, enjoying the political discussion. A spunky woman known for her drive, Catherine soon wanted to do more than just talk. She joined other tea partiers and decided to volunteer at the ballot box. Working as an alternate judge at the polls in 2009 in Fort Bend County, Texas, Catherine says, she was appalled and dismayed to witness everything from administrative snafus to outright voter fraud.
These formative experiences prompted her to found two organizations: King Street Patriots, a local community group that hosts weekly discussions on personal and economic freedoms; and True the Vote, which seeks to prevent voter fraud and trains volunteers to work as election monitors. It also registers voters, attempts to validate voter-registration lists, and pursues fraud reports to push for prosecution if illegal activity has occurred.
Bryan says that when his wife began focusing on politics, working less often at the manufacturing shop, “I told her, ‘You have my undying support.’” He pauses, then adds in his thick Texan drawl: “Little did I know she’d take it this far!”
In July 2010, Catherine filed with the IRS seeking tax-exempt status for her organizations. Shortly after, the troubles began.
That winter, the Federal Bureau of Investigation came knocking with questions about a person who had attended a King Street Patriots event once. Based on sign-in sheets, the organization discovered that the individual in question had attended an event, but “it was a come-and-go thing,” and they had no further information on hand about him. Nevertheless, the FBI also made inquiries about the person to the office manager, who was a volunteer.
The King Street Patriots weren’t the only ones under scrutiny. On January 11, the IRS visited the Engelbrechts’ shop and conducted an on-site audit of both their business and their personal returns, Catherine says.
What struck us as odd about that,” she adds,“is the lengths to which the auditor went to try to — it seemed like — to try to find some error. . . . She wanted to go out and see [our] farm, she wanted to count the cattle, she wanted to look at the fence line. It was a very curious three days. She was as kind as she could be, and she was doing her job . . . [but] it was strange.”
Bryan adds: “It was kind of funny to us. I mean, we weren’t laughing that much, but we knew we were squeaky clean. Our CPA’s a good guy. And who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor: I got a little bit of a refund.”
Two months later, the IRS initiated the first round of questions for True the Vote. Catherine painstakingly answered them, knowing that nonprofit status would help with the organization’s credibility, donors, and grant applications. In October, the IRS requested additional information. And whenever Catherine followed up with IRS agents about the status of True the Vote’s application, “there was always a delay that our application was going to be up next, and it was just around the corner,” she says,
As this was occurring, the FBI continued to phone King Street Patriots. In May 2011, agents phoned wondering “how they were doing.” The FBI made further inquiries in June, November, and December asking whether there was anything to report.
The situation escalated in 2012. That February, True the Vote received a third request for information from the IRS, which also sent its first questionnaire to King Street Patriots. Catherine says the IRS had “hundreds of questions — hundreds and hundreds of questions.” The IRS requested every Facebook post and Tweet she had ever written. She received questions about her family, whether she’d ever run for political office, and which organizations she had spoken to.
“It’s no great secret that the IRS is considered to be one of the more serious [federal agencies],” Catherine says. “When you get a call from the IRS, you don’t take it lightly. So when you’re asked questions that seem to imply a sense of disapproval, it has a very chilling effect.”
On the same day they received the questions from the IRS, Catherine says, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) launched an unscheduled audit of their machine shop, forcing the Engelbrechts to drop everything planned for that day. Though the Engelbrechts have a Class 7 license, which allows them to make component parts for guns, they do not manufacture firearms. Catherine said that while the ATF had a right to conduct the audit, “it was odd that they did it completely unannounced, and they took five, six hours. . . . It was so extensive. It just felt kind of weird.”
That was in February. In July, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration paid a visit to Engelbrecht Manufacturing while Bryan, Catherine, and their children were out of town. The OSHA inspector talked with the managerial staff and employees, inspecting the premises minutely. But Bryan says the agent found only “little Mickey Mouse stuff, like, ‘You have safety glasses on, but not the right kind; the forklift has a seatbelt, but not the right kind.’” Yet Catherine and Bryan said the OSHA inspector complimented them on their tightly run shop and said she didn’t know why she had been sent to examine it.
Not long after, the tab arrived. OSHA was imposing $25,000 in fines on Engelbrecht Manufacturing. They eventually worked it down to $17,500, and Bryan says they may have tried to contest the fines to drive them even lower, but “we didn’t want to make any more waves, because we don’t know [how much further] OSHA could reach.”
“Bottom line is, it hurt,” he says. Fifteen thousand dollars is “not an insignificant amount to this company. It might be to other companies, but we’re still considered small, and it came at a time when business was slow, so instead of giving an employee a raise or potentially hiring another employee, I’m writing a check to our government.”
A few months later, True the Vote became the subject of congressional scrutiny. In September, Senator Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) wrote to Thomas Perez, then the assistant attorney general of the civil rights division at the Department of Justice (who has now been nominated for labor secretary). “As you know, an organization called ‘True the Vote,’ which is an offshoot of the Tea Party, is leading a voter suppression campaign in many states,” Boxer wrote, adding that “this type of intimidation must stop. I don’t believe this is ‘True the Vote.’ I believe it’s ‘Stop the Vote.’”
And in October, Representative Elijah Cummings (D., Md.), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, attacked True the Vote in a letter. He wrote that “some have suggested that your true goal is not voter integrity, but voter suppression against thousands of legitimate voters who traditionally vote for Democratic candidates.” He added that: “If these efforts are intentional, politically motivated, and widespread across multiple states, they could amount to a criminal conspiracy to deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights.” He also decried True the Vote on MSNBC and CNN.
Catherine now says that she “absolutely” thinks that because she worked against voter fraud, the Left was irked and decided to target her.
The next month, in November 2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental agency, showed up for an unscheduled audit at Engelbrecht Manufacturing. Catherine says the inspector told her the agency had received a complaint but couldn’t provide any more details. After the inspection, the agency notified the Engelbrechts that they needed to pay for an additional mechanical permit, which cost about $2,000 per year.
Since then, the IRS has sent two further rounds of questions to Catherine for her organizations. And last month, the ATF conducted a second unscheduled audit at Engelbrecht Manufacturing.
Catherine says she still hasn’t received IRS approval for her nonprofits, though she filed nearly three years ago. And “the way all of these personal instances interweave with what was going on on the nonprofit side . . . it amounts to something. You can’t help but think that statistically, this has to be coordinated on some level.”
On behalf of the True the Vote and King Street Patriots, Representative Ted Poe (R., Texas) sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF, inquiring whether the organizations were under criminal investigation. A statement on Poe’s website states that “the reply from these agencies was that none of these individuals were under criminal investigation. Well, if they’re not, why are they being treated like criminals? Just because they question government.”
Catherine says she knows of at least one other group that received government inquiries about its relationship with True the Vote, and she suspects more did, too. And other Tea Party groups decided not to form nonprofits at all after learning about her experience, she says. “They were scared,” she explains, “and you shouldn’t be scared of your government.”
Meanwhile, Catherine says the harassment has forced her to seriously reconsider whether her political activity is worth the government harassment she’s faced.
“I left a thriving family business with my husband that I loved, to do something I didn’t necessarily love, but [which] I thought had to be done,” she says. “But I really think if we don’t do this, if we don’t stand up and speak now, there might not [always] be that chance.”
Her husband offers an additional observation: “If you knew my wife, you’d know she doesn’t back down from anybody. They picked on the wrong person when they started picking on her.”
whembly wrote: I think it's because the administration is trying to deflect... or, it's appearance.
So... yea, what you just said is the name of the game in DC. It's always been that way...
Yeah, its always been that way. Just worth mentioning it, in the hope that the more people notice it, the more they'll get sick of it, and maybe some point down the line it might get a little worse, and good governance will become more important than scoring a win over the other side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Wasn't there some sort of bull$%&# campaign promise about this being "the most transparent administration"?
Yeah, that got picked up a lot during Obama's first time. Lots of promises about FOI and other things that weren't just ignored, but the administration headed in the exact opposite direction.
It happens a lot, all around the world, and it seems like every time you hear lots of nice, positive claims about how they'll work to make their government transperat they end up doing the exact opposite when they're in power.
Funny thing is, it isn't as though transperancy is a losing battle. We've seen great strides forward in transperancy in the last generation, it's just that it never comes from the government's that make a lot of noise about how transparent they're going to be. I suspect this might be because talk about transperancy often comes from fairly politically naive politicians, who think all you have to do is just want transparency, and there'll never be any bureaucrat or politically powerful other party who'd fight you on releasing documents. Those folk, being politically naive, end up losing those battles, or never even realising there was a battle at all.
“Monday’s revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration’s account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press. Republicans said they were on the lookout for the next installment in the White House’s ever-shifting narrative.”
Well... at least they didn't blame this on a youtube video... yet...
Seriously though...if the White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about this a month ago... why hasn't he let his boss know about this? This is the sort of information the President ought to know. If he's not doing that... then why is he the Chief of Staff?
Well......I say for one positive thing....this was not a good ten days for Obama...Jay Carney....espacially for Jay Carney...
So what do we have
1. AP bent over by the DoJ
2. Fox reporter bent over by the DoJ (Just ONE and its major news compare to AP)
3. Benghazi (Pentagon might as well release what units, assets, and time line of them all if giving the "Go" command)
4. State Department watering down the talking points to "piss poor"
5. Republicans apoligizing to Rice (need to) for literally defaming her for reading the final 12th piss poor report
6. IRS literally goat roping the tax exemption process
7. IRS in goat roping rodeo mode for not giving a freaking hard date of when this actually started nor who knew at what time
8. Acting IRS Commisioner(?) resigning with just one month left to go on assignement....self infected wound there
9. Kerry need to STFU about Benghazi and come to the conclusion he walked into a Soup Sandwich and "quietly" clean house
10. Obama should not have mention he just learned about the IRS through the media....now it sounds like he made a soup sandwich
11. Hillary Clinton staying out of the Benghazi issue....believe Obama knows if he points at her that he's going to lose his fingers at the neck
12. Holder needs to go....seriously needs to go.....since he is the final approval for subpeonas for the AP investigation. Nicely play I must admit to delegate it to his 2nd
13. Jay Carney tap dancing the reporters...best one yet was he actually tried to tell the press that Obama called it right that Benghazi was a terrorist attack
Upcoming in our near future of endless mind numbing WTF is going will be...
1. Implementation of Obamacare....republicans boycotting the selection process of the medical board...states not implementing Obamacare...includes democrat states to
2. Gang of Eight immigration reform......not going to happen....those chuckleheads added some goodies for their states. UCIS might actually do the ICE route and take them to court
3. Withdraw from Afghanistan....SOFA agreement not going to be reached...we pull out all troops....you all would not believe how much we are going to leave behind
4. Syria....damn if we do....damn if we don't.....arm the rebels......I perfer not to.
My upcoming future
1. Four treatments left and looking at 85% for total remission
2. Retirement in July.......I hope
3. Finish painting Dakka Chaos Warband....so far have Alpha Legion...Night Lords...Word Bearers...World Eaters....Thousand Sons...Iron Warriors in this mix
4. About to start customization on mini's...
5. Wife wants to drop a 8 cylinder into my 4 cylinder Mistibishi Spyder....(just arrived from storage...almost four years of storage)
Catherine Engelbrecht’s tale has all the markings of a classic conspiracy theory: She says she thinks that because of her peaceful political activity, she and her family was targeted for scrutiny by hostile federal agencies.
Yet as news emerges that the Internal Revenue Service wielded its power to obstruct conservative groups, Catherine’s story becomes credible — and chilling. It also raises questions about whether other federal agencies have used their executive powers to target those deemed political enemies.
Before the Engelbrecht family’s three-year ordeal began, Catherine says, “I had no real expectation or preparation for the blood sport that American politics is.” Sounding weary on the phone, she continues: “It’s all been a through-the-looking-glass experience.”
Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who specializes in representing conservative organizations, says that the Engelbrecht family’s experience is “just the tip of the iceberg. . . . I think there’s definitely a Chicago-politics-style enemies list in this administration, and I think it permeates this branch of the federal government.”
The Engelbrechts were not, until recently, particularly political. They had been busy running a tiny manufacturing plant in Rosenberg, Texas. After years of working for others, Bryan, a trained machinist, wanted to open his own shop, so he saved his earnings, bought a computerized numerical-control machine, which does precision metal-cutting, and began operating out of his garage. “That was about 20 years ago,” he says. “Now, we’re up to about 30 employees.”
For two decades, Bryan and Catherine drove to work in their big truck. Engelbrecht Manufacturing Inc. now operates out of a 20,000-square-foot metal building on the prairie just outside of Houston, where a “semi-pet coyote lives in the field just behind us,” Bryan says. They went back to their country home each night. Stress was rare, and life was good.
But the 2008 elections left Catherine feeling frustrated about the debates, which seemed to be a string of superficial talking points. So she began attending tea-party meetings, enjoying the political discussion. A spunky woman known for her drive, Catherine soon wanted to do more than just talk. She joined other tea partiers and decided to volunteer at the ballot box. Working as an alternate judge at the polls in 2009 in Fort Bend County, Texas, Catherine says, she was appalled and dismayed to witness everything from administrative snafus to outright voter fraud.
These formative experiences prompted her to found two organizations: King Street Patriots, a local community group that hosts weekly discussions on personal and economic freedoms; and True the Vote, which seeks to prevent voter fraud and trains volunteers to work as election monitors. It also registers voters, attempts to validate voter-registration lists, and pursues fraud reports to push for prosecution if illegal activity has occurred.
Bryan says that when his wife began focusing on politics, working less often at the manufacturing shop, “I told her, ‘You have my undying support.’” He pauses, then adds in his thick Texan drawl: “Little did I know she’d take it this far!”
In July 2010, Catherine filed with the IRS seeking tax-exempt status for her organizations. Shortly after, the troubles began.
That winter, the Federal Bureau of Investigation came knocking with questions about a person who had attended a King Street Patriots event once. Based on sign-in sheets, the organization discovered that the individual in question had attended an event, but “it was a come-and-go thing,” and they had no further information on hand about him. Nevertheless, the FBI also made inquiries about the person to the office manager, who was a volunteer.
The King Street Patriots weren’t the only ones under scrutiny. On January 11, the IRS visited the Engelbrechts’ shop and conducted an on-site audit of both their business and their personal returns, Catherine says.
What struck us as odd about that,” she adds,“is the lengths to which the auditor went to try to — it seemed like — to try to find some error. . . . She wanted to go out and see [our] farm, she wanted to count the cattle, she wanted to look at the fence line. It was a very curious three days. She was as kind as she could be, and she was doing her job . . . [but] it was strange.”
Bryan adds: “It was kind of funny to us. I mean, we weren’t laughing that much, but we knew we were squeaky clean. Our CPA’s a good guy. And who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor: I got a little bit of a refund.”
Two months later, the IRS initiated the first round of questions for True the Vote. Catherine painstakingly answered them, knowing that nonprofit status would help with the organization’s credibility, donors, and grant applications. In October, the IRS requested additional information. And whenever Catherine followed up with IRS agents about the status of True the Vote’s application, “there was always a delay that our application was going to be up next, and it was just around the corner,” she says,
As this was occurring, the FBI continued to phone King Street Patriots. In May 2011, agents phoned wondering “how they were doing.” The FBI made further inquiries in June, November, and December asking whether there was anything to report.
The situation escalated in 2012. That February, True the Vote received a third request for information from the IRS, which also sent its first questionnaire to King Street Patriots. Catherine says the IRS had “hundreds of questions — hundreds and hundreds of questions.” The IRS requested every Facebook post and Tweet she had ever written. She received questions about her family, whether she’d ever run for political office, and which organizations she had spoken to.
“It’s no great secret that the IRS is considered to be one of the more serious [federal agencies],” Catherine says. “When you get a call from the IRS, you don’t take it lightly. So when you’re asked questions that seem to imply a sense of disapproval, it has a very chilling effect.”
On the same day they received the questions from the IRS, Catherine says, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) launched an unscheduled audit of their machine shop, forcing the Engelbrechts to drop everything planned for that day. Though the Engelbrechts have a Class 7 license, which allows them to make component parts for guns, they do not manufacture firearms. Catherine said that while the ATF had a right to conduct the audit, “it was odd that they did it completely unannounced, and they took five, six hours. . . . It was so extensive. It just felt kind of weird.”
That was in February. In July, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration paid a visit to Engelbrecht Manufacturing while Bryan, Catherine, and their children were out of town. The OSHA inspector talked with the managerial staff and employees, inspecting the premises minutely. But Bryan says the agent found only “little Mickey Mouse stuff, like, ‘You have safety glasses on, but not the right kind; the forklift has a seatbelt, but not the right kind.’” Yet Catherine and Bryan said the OSHA inspector complimented them on their tightly run shop and said she didn’t know why she had been sent to examine it.
Not long after, the tab arrived. OSHA was imposing $25,000 in fines on Engelbrecht Manufacturing. They eventually worked it down to $17,500, and Bryan says they may have tried to contest the fines to drive them even lower, but “we didn’t want to make any more waves, because we don’t know [how much further] OSHA could reach.”
“Bottom line is, it hurt,” he says. Fifteen thousand dollars is “not an insignificant amount to this company. It might be to other companies, but we’re still considered small, and it came at a time when business was slow, so instead of giving an employee a raise or potentially hiring another employee, I’m writing a check to our government.”
A few months later, True the Vote became the subject of congressional scrutiny. In September, Senator Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) wrote to Thomas Perez, then the assistant attorney general of the civil rights division at the Department of Justice (who has now been nominated for labor secretary). “As you know, an organization called ‘True the Vote,’ which is an offshoot of the Tea Party, is leading a voter suppression campaign in many states,” Boxer wrote, adding that “this type of intimidation must stop. I don’t believe this is ‘True the Vote.’ I believe it’s ‘Stop the Vote.’”
And in October, Representative Elijah Cummings (D., Md.), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, attacked True the Vote in a letter. He wrote that “some have suggested that your true goal is not voter integrity, but voter suppression against thousands of legitimate voters who traditionally vote for Democratic candidates.” He added that: “If these efforts are intentional, politically motivated, and widespread across multiple states, they could amount to a criminal conspiracy to deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights.” He also decried True the Vote on MSNBC and CNN.
Catherine now says that she “absolutely” thinks that because she worked against voter fraud, the Left was irked and decided to target her.
The next month, in November 2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state’s environmental agency, showed up for an unscheduled audit at Engelbrecht Manufacturing. Catherine says the inspector told her the agency had received a complaint but couldn’t provide any more details. After the inspection, the agency notified the Engelbrechts that they needed to pay for an additional mechanical permit, which cost about $2,000 per year.
Since then, the IRS has sent two further rounds of questions to Catherine for her organizations. And last month, the ATF conducted a second unscheduled audit at Engelbrecht Manufacturing.
Catherine says she still hasn’t received IRS approval for her nonprofits, though she filed nearly three years ago. And “the way all of these personal instances interweave with what was going on on the nonprofit side . . . it amounts to something. You can’t help but think that statistically, this has to be coordinated on some level.”
On behalf of the True the Vote and King Street Patriots, Representative Ted Poe (R., Texas) sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF, inquiring whether the organizations were under criminal investigation. A statement on Poe’s website states that “the reply from these agencies was that none of these individuals were under criminal investigation. Well, if they’re not, why are they being treated like criminals? Just because they question government.”
Catherine says she knows of at least one other group that received government inquiries about its relationship with True the Vote, and she suspects more did, too. And other Tea Party groups decided not to form nonprofits at all after learning about her experience, she says. “They were scared,” she explains, “and you shouldn’t be scared of your government.”
Meanwhile, Catherine says the harassment has forced her to seriously reconsider whether her political activity is worth the government harassment she’s faced.
“I left a thriving family business with my husband that I loved, to do something I didn’t necessarily love, but [which] I thought had to be done,” she says. “But I really think if we don’t do this, if we don’t stand up and speak now, there might not [always] be that chance.”
Her husband offers an additional observation: “If you knew my wife, you’d know she doesn’t back down from anybody. They picked on the wrong person when they started picking on her.”
Yea thats appears pretty coordinated.
I used to get my hair cut in Rosemberg by an old guy who barely spoke English in a genuine barber shop replete with barber pole etc. Good memories there.
“Monday’s revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration’s account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press. Republicans said they were on the lookout for the next installment in the White House’s ever-shifting narrative.”
Well... at least they didn't blame this on a youtube video... yet...
Seriously though...if the White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about this a month ago... why hasn't he let his boss know about this? This is the sort of information the President ought to know. If he's not doing that... then why is he the Chief of Staff?
More importatnly, why hasn't the White House actually performed its primary function of managing the IRS? Where are the meetings with IRS directors, the reports, the terminations of employees?
Again, to date, no punitive action has been taken (I dismiss the guy resigning now who was already leaving in June as discipline). Still no executive oversight has been perfomed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Well......I say for one positive thing....this was not a good ten days for Obama...Jay Carney....espacially for Jay Carney...
So what do we have
1. AP bent over by the DoJ
2. Fox reporter bent over by the DoJ (Just ONE and its major news compare to AP)
3. Benghazi (Pentagon might as well release what units, assets, and time line of them all if giving the "Go" command)
4. State Department watering down the talking points to "piss poor"
5. Republicans apoligizing to Rice (need to) for literally defaming her for reading the final 12th piss poor report
6. IRS literally goat roping the tax exemption process
7. IRS in goat roping rodeo mode for not giving a freaking hard date of when this actually started nor who knew at what time
8. Acting IRS Commisioner(?) resigning with just one month left to go on assignement....self infected wound there
9. Kerry need to STFU about Benghazi and come to the conclusion he walked into a Soup Sandwich and "quietly" clean house
10. Obama should not have mention he just learned about the IRS through the media....now it sounds like he made a soup sandwich
11. Hillary Clinton staying out of the Benghazi issue....believe Obama knows if he points at her that he's going to lose his fingers at the neck
12. Holder needs to go....seriously needs to go.....since he is the final approval for subpeonas for the AP investigation. Nicely play I must admit to delegate it to his 2nd
13. Jay Carney tap dancing the reporters...best one yet was he actually tried to tell the press that Obama called it right that Benghazi was a terrorist attack
Upcoming in our near future of endless mind numbing WTF is going will be...
1. Implementation of Obamacare....republicans boycotting the selection process of the medical board...states not implementing Obamacare...includes democrat states to
2. Gang of Eight immigration reform......not going to happen....those chuckleheads added some goodies for their states. UCIS might actually do the ICE route and take them to court
3. Withdraw from Afghanistan....SOFA agreement not going to be reached...we pull out all troops....you all would not believe how much we are going to leave behind
4. Syria....damn if we do....damn if we don't.....arm the rebels......I perfer not to.
My upcoming future
1. Four treatments left and looking at 85% for total remission
2. Retirement in July.......I hope
3. Finish painting Dakka Chaos Warband....so far have Alpha Legion...Night Lords...Word Bearers...World Eaters....Thousand Sons...Iron Warriors in this mix
4. About to start customization on mini's...
5. Wife wants to drop a 8 cylinder into my 4 cylinder Mistibishi Spyder....(just arrived from storage...almost four years of storage)
Here's to being in the 85%!
The wife wants to get matching Honda rebels and start riding next month. I've had to push that off until post Tbone. But dude, girl wants to put on the leathers and ride.
Oooh! Idea for a breathday present!
Senior White House aides were informed last month of an inquiry into the US tax agency's targeting of conservative political groups, an official has said.
President Barack Obama himself was not informed, spokesman Jay Carney said.
Officials at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have apologised for mistakes ahead of the 2012 election but say there was no political motivation.
Republicans have sought to use the matter to discredit the president just months into his second term in office.
On Monday, Mr Carney said that Mr Obama's chief of staff Denis McDonough was informed in April of an investigation under way by the treasury department's inspector general.
The revelation expands the circle of Obama aides who were made aware of the IRS affair before it was first widely reported on 10 May.
Mr Carney said Mr McDonough "appropriately" decided not to tell the president because while the inquiry's broad findings were known, they were subject to change as it remained ongoing.
And Mr Carney said the White House took no action to intervene in the investigation.
"The cardinal rule... is that you do not intervene in an independent investigation, and you do not do anything that would... give such an appearance, particularly when the final conclusions have not been reached," he said on Monday.
Mr Carney said last week that the top White House lawyer, Kathy Ruemmler, was informed that the inspector general's investigation was under way in April, but he did not mention that more senior officials such as Mr McDonough knew.
Heavy workload
In 2010-12, the IRS was inundated with new applications from groups seeking tax-exempt status, after the US Supreme Court loosened restrictions on political spending by organisations unaffiliated with candidates' campaigns.
According to IRS officials and the inspector general's report, in 2010-12 staff members at an IRS office in Cincinnati, Ohio used keywords such as "Tea Party" and "patriot" to select organisations for extra scrutiny.
The Tea Party is a loosely organised movement of anti-tax conservatives, and in the American political lexicon, "patriot" can indicate a conservative orientation.
The treasury department inspector general for tax matters has said he had found no evidence the IRS had acted under political pressure from the White House, and officials have said the practice was an effort to handle the heavy workload.
Two top IRS officials have resigned over the matter, which Mr Obama has denounced as an unacceptable intrusion into citizens' political activities.
The FBI has launched a criminal inquiry. Congress has already held one hearing into the matter and more are planned.
If this is the fifth version of events surrounding this, and there is a similar pattern with other issues also, is there an effective way that this Administration communicates? Or do they hope that stop gap measures will suffice until the next revelation?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: My upcoming future
1. Four treatments left and looking at 85% for total remission
2. Retirement in July.......I hope
3. Finish painting Dakka Chaos Warband....so far have Alpha Legion...Night Lords...Word Bearers...World Eaters....Thousand Sons...Iron Warriors in this mix
4. About to start customization on mini's...
5. Wife wants to drop a 8 cylinder into my 4 cylinder Mistibishi Spyder....(just arrived from storage...almost four years of storage)
Again, he was told of an investigation, not of any findings. What should they have done when they were told there was an investigation? The only thing they could do without prejudicing the investigation was to do nothing, which is exactly what they did.
Frazzled wrote: He called have called in the IRS chief and asked what the hell was going on, and then fired everyone even remotely involved.
And then promptly get sued by everyone fired, since until the report is done there is no standing evidence of any allegations.
Which is why they waited. So the investigation could be done. Because people actually do get this thing called due process. Where you actually have to prove they've done something wrong.
Frazzled wrote: He called have called in the IRS chief and asked what the hell was going on, and then fired everyone even remotely involved.
And then promptly get sued by everyone fired, since until the report is done there is no standing evidence of any allegations.
Which is why they waited. So the investigation could be done. Because people actually do get this thing called due process. Where you actually have to prove they've done something wrong.
He doesn't need allegations to fire them, just fire them.
Thats not why they waited. It blew up on them and became a scandal. Thats my deal, where is this guy? "I heard it on the news" is not an excuse when you are in charge.
Why is Holder not fired over the AP thing? Thats serious gak.
Why are the guys who did Fast and Furious not fired?
Why are the IRS people responsible not fired?
Do your job. You don't have to know everything that is going on to be the boss. Enough already. Quit saying "I don't know anything." Say "this is inappropriate and those losers are gone." I'd applaud that.
Some small news: Steve Miller now admits the question asked of Lori Lerner was planted, walking back his previous ambiguity.
And more importantly... the author of the IG Report notes that the IRS staffers who denied a political motivation in their targeting did so not under oath.
Not under oath? There's almost no point in asking questions, then...
Frazzled wrote: He called have called in the IRS chief and asked what the hell was going on, and then fired everyone even remotely involved.
And then promptly get sued by everyone fired, since until the report is done there is no standing evidence of any allegations.
Which is why they waited. So the investigation could be done. Because people actually do get this thing called due process. Where you actually have to prove they've done something wrong.
He doesn't need allegations to fire them, just fire them.
Thats not why they waited. It blew up on them and became a scandal. Thats my deal, where is this guy? "I heard it on the news" is not an excuse when you are in charge.
Why is Holder not fired over the AP thing? Thats serious gak.
Why are the guys who did Fast and Furious not fired?
Why are the IRS people responsible not fired?
Do your job. You don't have to know everything that is going on to be the boss. Enough already. Quit saying "I don't know anything." Say "this is inappropriate and those losers are gone." I'd applaud that.
Bolded: "You're fired!!" "Why?!" "We think you might have done something wrong."
It doesn't (and shouldn't) work like that and you know it. And even if this had never become a scandal, if the IG report shows serious issues, people could, should and likely will be fired. That's how this stuff works in the federal government. That's what people seem to be missing. The IG report isn't a police investigation. It's not a congressional hearing. It's not a witch hunt to impeach Obama. It's the agency policing itself, and it takes time like any other investigation.
Not that any of this will get past the "lol kill the government" crowd out there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Some small news: Steve Miller now admits the question asked of Lori Lerner was planted, walking back his previous ambiguity.
And more importantly... the author of the IG Report notes that the IRS staffers who denied a political motivation in their targeting did so not under oath.
Not under oath? There's almost no point in asking questions, then...
Yes and no. If there are enough findings of criminal activity, they can launch an actual criminal investigation. At which point those lies becomes impeding an investigation. It's basically like lying to the police. You aren't under oath when police question you, but if you lie to them and they find out then you are facing a whole new crop of charges.
whembly wrote: Some small news: Steve Miller now admits the question asked of Lori Lerner was planted, walking back his previous ambiguity.
And more importantly... the author of the IG Report notes that the IRS staffers who denied a political motivation in their targeting did so not under oath.
Not under oath? There's almost no point in asking questions, then...
Yes and no. If there are enough findings of criminal activity, they can launch an actual criminal investigation. At which point those lies becomes impeding an investigation. It's basically like lying to the police. You aren't under oath when police question you, but if you lie to them and they find out then you are facing a whole new crop of charges.
Huh... I though every IG investigation requires you to be under oath? (this is from memory from Clinton to Scooter...).
§ 6. AUTHORITY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL; INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES; UNREASONABLE REFUSAL; OFFICE SPACE AND EQUIPMENT
How Current is This?
(a) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by this Act, each Inspector General, in carrying out the provisions of this Act, is authorized—
(1) to have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material available to the applicable establishment which relate to programs and operations with respect to which that Inspector General has responsibilities under this Act;
(2) to make such investigations and reports relating to the administration of the programs and operations of the applicable establishment as are, in the judgment of the Inspector General, necessary or desirable;
(3) to request such information or assistance as may be necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities provided by this Act from any Federal, State, or local governmental agency or unit thereof;
(4) to require by subpoena the production of all information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data in any medium (including electronically stored information, as well as any tangible thing) and documentary evidence necessary in the performance of the functions assigned by this Act, which subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by order of any appropriate United States district court: Provided, That procedures other than subpenas shall be used by the Inspector General to obtain documents and information from Federal agencies;
(5) to administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit, whenever necessary in the performance of the functions assigned by this Act, which oath, affirmation, or affidavit when administered or taken by or before an employee of an Office of Inspector General designated by the Inspector General shall have the same force and effect as if administered or taken by or before an officer having a seal;
(6) to have direct and prompt access to the head of the establishment involved when necessary for any purpose pertaining to the performance of functions and responsibilities under this Act;
(7) to select, appoint, and employ such officers and employees as may be necessary for carrying out the functions, powers, and duties of the Office subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates;
(8) to obtain services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, at daily rates not to exceed the equivalent rate prescribed for grade GS–18 of the General Schedule by section 5332 of title 5, United States Code; and
(9) to the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance by appropriations Acts, to enter into contracts and other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other services with public agencies and with private persons, and to make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(b)
(1) Upon request of an Inspector General for information or assistance under subsection (a)(3), the head of any Federal agency involved shall, insofar as is practicable and not in contravention of any existing statutory restriction or regulation of the Federal agency from which the information is requested, furnish to such Inspector General, or to an authorized designee, such information or assistance.
(2) Whenever information or assistance requested under subsection (a)(1) or (a)(3) is, in the judgment of an Inspector General, unreasonably refused or not provided, the Inspector General shall report the circumstances to the head of the establishment involved without delay.
(c) Each head of an establishment shall provide the Office within such establishment with appropriate and adequate office space at central and field office locations of such establishment, together with such equipment, office supplies, and communications facilities and services as may be necessary for the operation of such offices, and shall provide necessary maintenance services for such offices and the equipment and facilities located therein.
(d)
(1)
(A) For purposes of applying the provisions of law identified in subparagraph (B)—
(i) each Office of Inspector General shall be considered to be a separate agency; and
(ii) the Inspector General who is the head of an office referred to in clause (i) shall, with respect to such office, have the functions, powers, and duties of an agency head or appointing authority under such provisions.
(B) This paragraph applies with respect to the following provisions of title 5, United States Code:
(i) Subchapter II of chapter 35.
(ii) Sections 8335 (b), 8336, 8344, 8414, 8468, and 8425 (b).
(iii) All provisions relating to the Senior Executive Service (as determined by the Office of Personnel Management), subject to paragraph (2).
(2) For purposes of applying section 4507 (b) of title 5, United States Code, paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall be applied by substituting “the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (established by section 11 of the Inspector General Act) shall” for “the Inspector General who is the head of an office referred to in clause (i) shall, with respect to such office,”.
(e)
(1) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by this Act, each Inspector General, any Assistant Inspector General for Investigations under such an Inspector General, and any special agent supervised by such an Assistant Inspector General may be authorized by the Attorney General to—
(A) carry a firearm while engaged in official duties as authorized under this Act or other statute, or as expressly authorized by the Attorney General;
(B) make an arrest without a warrant while engaged in official duties as authorized under this Act or other statute, or as expressly authorized by the Attorney General, for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of such Inspector General, Assistant Inspector General, or agent, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if such Inspector General, Assistant Inspector General, or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony; and
(C) seek and execute warrants for arrest, search of a premises, or seizure of evidence issued under the authority of the United States upon probable cause to believe that a violation has been committed.
(2) The Attorney General may authorize exercise of the powers under this subsection only upon an initial determination that—
(A) the affected Office of Inspector General is significantly hampered in the performance of responsibilities established by this Act as a result of the lack of such powers;
(B) available assistance from other law enforcement agencies is insufficient to meet the need for such powers; and
(C) adequate internal safeguards and management procedures exist to ensure proper exercise of such powers.
(3) The Inspector General offices of the Department of Commerce, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency for International Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Railroad Retirement Board, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority are exempt from the requirement of paragraph (2) of an initial determination of eligibility by the Attorney General.
(4) The Attorney General shall promulgate, and revise as appropriate, guidelines which shall govern the exercise of the law enforcement powers established under paragraph (1).
(5)
(A) Powers authorized for an Office of Inspector General under paragraph (1) may be rescinded or suspended upon a determination by the Attorney General that any of the requirements under paragraph (2) is no longer satisfied or that the exercise of authorized powers by that Office of Inspector General has not complied with the guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General under paragraph (4).
(B) Powers authorized to be exercised by any individual under paragraph (1) may be rescinded or suspended with respect to that individual upon a determination by the Attorney General that such individual has not complied with guidelines promulgated by the Attorney General under paragraph (4).
(6) A determination by the Attorney General under paragraph (2) or (5) shall not be reviewable in or by any court.
(7) To ensure the proper exercise of the law enforcement powers authorized by this subsection, the Offices of Inspector General described under paragraph (3) shall, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, collectively enter into a memorandum of understanding to establish an external review process for ensuring that adequate internal safeguards and management procedures continue to exist within each Office and within any Office that later receives an authorization under paragraph (2). The review process shall be established in consultation with the Attorney General, who shall be provided with a copy of the memorandum of understanding that establishes the review process. Under the review process, the exercise of the law enforcement powers by each Office of Inspector General shall be reviewed periodically by another Office of Inspector General or by a committee of Inspectors General. The results of each review shall be communicated in writing to the applicable Inspector General and to the Attorney General.
(8) No provision of this subsection shall limit the exercise of law enforcement powers established under any other statutory authority, including United States Marshals Service special deputation.
(9) In this subsection, the term “Inspector General” means an Inspector General appointed under section 3 or an Inspector General appointed under section 8G.
(f)
(1) For each fiscal year, an Inspector General shall transmit a budget estimate and request to the head of the establishment or designated Federal entity to which the Inspector General reports. The budget request shall specify the aggregate amount of funds requested for such fiscal year for the operations of that Inspector General and shall specify the amount requested for all training needs, including a certification from the Inspector General that the amount requested satisfies all training requirements for the Inspector General’s office for that fiscal year, and any resources necessary to support the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Resources necessary to support the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency shall be specifically identified and justified in the budget request.
(2) In transmitting a proposed budget to the President for approval, the head of each establishment or designated Federal entity shall include—
(A) an aggregate request for the Inspector General;
(B) amounts for Inspector General training;
(C) amounts for support of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency; and
(D) any comments of the affected Inspector General with respect to the proposal.
(3) The President shall include in each budget of the United States Government submitted to Congress—
(A) a separate statement of the budget estimate prepared in accordance with paragraph (1);
(B) the amount requested by the President for each Inspector General;
(C) the amount requested by the President for training of Inspectors General;
(D) the amount requested by the President for support for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency; and
(E) any comments of the affected Inspector General with respect to the proposal if the Inspector General concludes that the budget submitted by the President would substantially inhibit the Inspector General from performing the duties of the office.
Interesting find. I wonder if we'll find out why no one was questioned under oath. It would seem the sensible thing to do, especially if it is only a few low level employees as alleged.
Frazzled wrote:You say thats how things are done. When? When are people fired? No one's been fired over gunrunner. Dude its been YEARS.
Sure things work like that. You think nongovenrmental organizations fart around on something reputaitonally serious?
Reports done. No one's fired.
Uh, I never paid too much attention to it to begin with, but wasn't the deal with that snafu that it was incompetence, but no wrongdoing?
You know in the real world people can be fired for incompetence right? Maybe not in government because that explains so much.
I'm almost certain that the US government has provisions protecting it from being fired due to incompetence (although that that may just be certain positions. I'm nearly positive that congressional posts have something like that)
Frazzled wrote:Thats not correct actually. Any deposition is under oath. Doesn't really mean anything.
Police don't need it. Anything you say to them can and will be used in a court of law.
Not every questioning is a deposition though. And as I said before, if you lie during a non-oath'ed investigation, you can certainly be prosecuted after the fact for impeding investigations. Just because you're not under oath doesn't mean that the questioning session isn't being taken down for the record.
Again, no different than the police questioning a suspect.
Ah, I stand corrected on that then. Though I'm admittedly a bit confused by this portion:
to administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit, whenever necessary in the performance of the functions assigned by this Act, which oath, affirmation, or affidavit when administered or taken by or before an employee of an Office of Inspector General designated by the Inspector General shall have the same force and effect as if administered or taken by or before an officer having a seal
Mostly I'm unsure what "office having a seal" specifically pertains to.
Either way, it would seem not getting an oath seems to be S.O.P., which I agree is strange. I suspect there is some corollary to an Oath that doesn't apply to a "regular" questioning? I'm not exactly a lawyer here.
Huh... I though every IG investigation requires you to be under oath? (this is from memory from Clinton to Scooter...).
o.O
Interesting...
Fairly certain that only the courts can actually place you under oath. Not even the police have that ability.
As a commander or an investigating officer I have taken very many sworn statements (statements given under oath). In fact, I never took a statement NOT under oath. As soon as you realize something for which some type of punitive action may come into play you immediately go to sworn statements...
Lois Lerner, the head of the exempt organizations division of the IRS, won’t answer questions about what she knew about the improper screening – or why she didn’t reveal it to Congress, according to a letter from her defense lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd.
I'd grant Lerner immunity and use her to get Sarah Ingram.... remember, Ingram was the boss when this started.
(and, she's currently in charge of implementing Obamacare).
If I recall, Lerner is a lawyer by training and with the allegation that she planted the question in the audience that helped give the news about the IRS it's first spark I would not be surprised if she has an end game. She'd be foolish not to.
Nothing like public servants being accountable In this case I believe that she should still be called, otherwise it sets a precedent for people called before a House Committee to simply have their lawyer draft a letter to avoid being called.
Maybe she's hoping for immunity by throwing up a roadblock
whembly wrote: Bear in mind, Lerner is pleading the 5th out of fear of being prosecuted by Obama's DOJ or his US attorneys. It has to be really bad.
That is an assumption, and though it is one possibility she could also be doing it to protect others.
Of course not. She's clearly covering up for the administration, at the threat of being sent to a FEMA reeducation camp!
/sarcasm off
Of course it's an assumption on Whembly's part. He should really work for a sensationalist news outlet; he'd fit right in. Why report the news when you can report the news and color the opinions of anyone who has read it!
Kanluwen wrote: Of course not. She's clearly covering up for the administration, at the threat of being sent to a FEMA reeducation camp!
/sarcasm off
Of course it's an assumption on Whembly's part. He should really work for a sensationalist news outlet; he'd fit right in. Why report the news when you can report the news and color the opinions of anyone who has read it!
Sounds a lot like you're playing the player, rather than the ball
Tempers flared in a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing Wednesday, with members on both sides of the aisle castigating the Internal Revenue Service for targeting conservative groups with special scrutiny, and then hiding the practice from Congress.
Rep. Darrel Issa, the committee's chairman, said that the committee learned just yesterday that the IRS completed its own investigation a year before a Treasury Department Inspector General report was completed.
But despite the IRS recognizing in May 2012 that its employees were treating right-wing groups differently from other organizations, Issa said, IRS personnel withheld those conclusions from legislators.
'Just yesterday the committee interviewed Holly Paz, the director of exempt organizations, rulings and agreements, division of the IRS,' Issa said. 'While a tremendous amount of attention is centered about the Inspector General's report, or investigation, the committee has learned from Ms. Paz that she in fact participated in an IRS internal investigation that concluded in May of 2012 - May 3 of 2012 - and found essentially the same thing that Mr. George found more than a year later.'
'Think about it,' he continued: 'For more than a year, the IRS knew that it had inappropriately targeted groups of Americans based on their political beliefs, and without mentioning it, and in fact without honestly answering questions that were the result of this internal investigation.'
Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin testified that he was unaware of that IRS investigation until he read other officials prepared testimony just a few days ago.
Lois Lerner, the Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS, made a brief opening statement recounting the recent history of the agency's scandal. Her attorney told the committee on Tuesday in a letter that she would refuse to answer questions by invoking her protections under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
'I have not done anything wrong,' she said. 'I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other committee.'
Issa dismissed Lerner from the hearing, over objections from South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, who insisted that she should be forced to answer questions since she had 'waived her right' to refuse 'by issuing an opening statement.'
'She ought to stay and answer questions,' Gowdy said, to sudden applause from some in the audience gallery. Issa then kept Lerner in the hearing room, asking her if she would answer any questions at all.
'I will not answer any questions or testify today,' she replied.
Issa then asked if she would answer questions about her previous testimony before Congress.
'i decline to answer that question, for reasons I have already given.'
Lerner was dismissed a second time and left the hearing room with her lawyer, but not before Issa cautioned that she could be recalled and forced to testify in the future if committee attorneys determined that she had forfeited her Fifth Amendment rights by making an opening statement.
One top Democrat breathed fire, warning that prosecutions could result.
Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch said that if witnesses stonewalled the committee there would be legal consequences.
'If you refuse to answer,' Lynch said, 'you will leave us no choice but to ask for a special counsel or the appointment of a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this.'
'I hope that’s not the approach of the IRS going forward,'he added. 'Because there will be hell to pay.'
Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, linked the tea party scandal with the implementation of President Obama's Affordable Care Act.
'This administration, this agency, the very agency charged with enforcing Obamacare,' Jordan said in an opening statement, 'systematically targeted groups that came into existence because they opposed Obamacare - and they started the targeting the very month, March 2010, that Obamacare came into law - expects us to believe it is the work of ‘two rogue agents.'
The Obama administration, Jordan reminded those in the hearing room, also 'told us and told the American people that the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi was the work - was caused by a video.
'The people don’t buy it,' he said. 'The American people get it. They just want this administration to give them the truth. And that’s why this hearing is so important.'
Wolin also disclosed that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew got a heads-up in March - a month before White House Counsel Kathy Ruemmler - that an Inspector General report would soon be issued. That notification, he said, came from the Inspector General himself.
'On March 15, 2013, Mr. George had a short introductory meeting with Secretary Lew,' Wolin's prepared remarks read.
'At that meeting, Mr. George informed Secretary Lew of a number of matters TIGTA [the Inspector General office] was reviewing. He also indicated that this audit report would be forthcoming. Mr. George did not describe any details of his audit findings. This was also in line with standard practice.'
Florida Republican Rep. John Mica explained in his remarks why the IRS scandal may have overtaken the other two public-perception challenges that the Obama administration faces, whose being the 2012 Benghazi terror attack and the Justice Department's spying on reporters.
His tax-paying constituents, Mica said, find that it resonates especially well with them.
'I don’t think I've ever seen any investigation or review by this committee or subject that has so riveted and shocked the American people,' Mica said.
'I went home last weekend and almost to a person everyone asked me about this.'
Kanluwen wrote: Of course not. She's clearly covering up for the administration, at the threat of being sent to a FEMA reeducation camp!
/sarcasm off
Of course it's an assumption on Whembly's part. He should really work for a sensationalist news outlet; he'd fit right in. Why report the news when you can report the news and color the opinions of anyone who has read it!
Sounds a lot like you're playing the player, rather than the ball
If he wants to post an article?
That's fine. Don't post an "update" set up with your own slant and no actual article associated with it.
Link to the article provide above for those who want to read it.
Forgot...
Thanks!
Kan, here is the article in question... he did admit to forgetting to post it...
His post was today.
His statement is:
So...Lerner took the 5th today...that's her right.
Just as we have a right to "interpret" that behavior...
Bear in mind, Lerner is pleading the 5th out of fear of being prosecuted by Obama's DOJ or his US attorneys. It has to be really bad.
There's no article attached to that statement. There's just the statement of "She plead the 5th" and then the whole bit about "interpreting" the pleading.
So we aren't allowed to speculate on events as they happen? I would have thought that invoking the right not to self incriminate could reasonably be seen as not wanting to say something that you could later be prosecuted for by the Department of Justice.
Maybe you have another slant on her pleading the 5th that you would like to share with us, you may be seeing something that others are not.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So we aren't allowed to speculate on events as they happen? I would have thought that invoking the right not to self incriminate could reasonably be seen as not wanting to say something that you could later be prosecuted for by the Department of Justice.
You're perfectly welcome to speculate on events as they happen.
Just don't go and y'know...try to wrap it up as though you know what you're talking about or are a media presenter.
Maybe you have another slant on her pleading the 5th that you would like to share with us, you may be seeing something that others are not.
There's no "slant" about it. She plead the 5th. That's her right. Why she did it?
Who knows at this point.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So we aren't allowed to speculate on events as they happen? I would have thought that invoking the right not to self incriminate could reasonably be seen as not wanting to say something that you could later be prosecuted for by the Department of Justice.
You're perfectly welcome to speculate on events as they happen.
Just don't go and y'know...try to wrap it up as though you know what you're talking about or are a media presenter.
Maybe you have another slant on her pleading the 5th that you would like to share with us, you may be seeing something that others are not.
There's no "slant" about it. She plead the 5th. That's her right. Why she did it?
Who knows at this point.
AS this is not a court of law we can speculate all we want.
Frazzled speculates she's worried about having to take groups showers in Club Fed.
So...Lerner took the 5th today...that's her right.
Just as we have a right to "interpret" that behavior...
Bear in mind, Lerner is pleading the 5th out of fear of being prosecuted by Obama's DOJ or his US attorneys. It has to be really bad.
There's no article attached to that statement. There's just the statement of "She plead the 5th" and then the whole bit about "interpreting" the pleading.
We all have access to a thing called the "internet".
I did intend to post an article... but, I've been working.
And for the record, I did say she has the right to plead the 5th. Just was WE HAVE A RIGHT to what assumption we choose to make based on said behaviors.
I didn't get what you got from whembly's post. He talked about having the right to interpret (which he did) and you just confirmed that we have the right to speculate. Perhaps you found his language imprecise, but based on the context it should have been easy to adduce that he was speculating.
As with much else concerning the IRS I'm sure we'll find out more in due course.
Now I'm just spitballing here and would like someone who worked (or knows someone) for the Federal Government to chime in...
You have every right to take the 5th.
But, as Federal Employees... if you take the 5th during a congressional hearing whereby said committee is performing it's oversight duty... shouldn't that employee be immediately put on Administrative Leave, if not outright removed?
whembly wrote: Now I'm just spitballing here and would like someone who worked (or knows someone) for the Federal Government to chime in...
You have every right to take the 5th.
But, as Federal Employees... if you take the 5th during a congressional hearing whereby said committee is performing it's oversight duty... shouldn't that employee be immediately put on Administrative Leave, if not outright removed?
Remember, this is a civil servant job.
Firing someone for exercising their rights? Why would you do that? I'm agree that she should be being helpful, but why should we be treating her 5th Amendment rights any differently than her 1st, 2nd or 4th amendment rights?
Frazzled wrote: good point. However I've since been informed no one gets fired from the government.
whembly wrote: Now I'm just spitballing here and would like someone who worked (or knows someone) for the Federal Government to chime in...
You have every right to take the 5th.
But, as Federal Employees... if you take the 5th during a congressional hearing whereby said committee is performing it's oversight duty... shouldn't that employee be immediately put on Administrative Leave, if not outright removed?
Remember, this is a civil servant job.
Firing someone for exercising their rights? Why would you do that? I'm agree that she should be being helpful, but why should we be treating her 5th Amendment rights any differently than her 1st, 2nd or 4th amendment rights?
Administrative Leave... that's not being fired.
Sure, there needs to be failsafe/reviews to ensure that this doesn't get abused.
But, if you refuse to cooperate with a Congressional Oversight committee... it's, a scary proposition that you'd continue your duties while refusing to cooperate... see where I'm getting at?
Admin leave I couldn't care less about (although I can already see the partisan "OMG PAYING HER" whining ). I was taking more umbrage with "outright removal".
streamdragon wrote: Admin leave I couldn't care less about (although I can already see the partisan "OMG PAYING HER" whining ). I was taking more umbrage with "outright removal".
Meh...
The route I'd go is for Administrative Leave until that person's review is satisfied or not. Simply firing them when taking the 5th seems excessive. But, I'd certainly advocate that the person should not be performing their duties while not cooperating with Congress (via taking the 5th).
I've yet to see anything that would contradict that. o.O
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well... Lerner opened up a Legal Pandora's Box this morning...
While Internal Revenue Service official Lois G. Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment in her refusal to testify before Congress Wednesday, the fact that she gave a lengthy opening statement defending her innocence infuriated some lawmakers and prompted them to suggest she had inadvertently waived her right against self-incrimination.
In the course of her opening statement Lerner, the head of the IRS division on tax-exempt organizations, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, ““I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”
But the fact that she reiterated some of the same answers she gave the inspector general during his investigation prompted the panel’s chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) to remark, “At this point, I believe you have not asserted your rights, but have effectively waived your rights.”
Did she?
Like many legal questions, it depends on whom you ask. Stanley M. Brand, who has represented several clients that have faced congressional scrutiny, wrote in an e-mail he did not believe she provided “a waiver” for lawmakers to ask her questions by broaching the subject of her division’s activities before invoking the Fifth Amendment.
“The question would be whether she made statements about the factual substance of the subject, but courts will be loath to divest someone of their rights absent a clear and unequivocal waiver,” Brand wrote.
Brand raises a key point—in order to compel Lerner to testify, Congress would have to hold her in contempt.
In certain circumstances, Lerner’s detailed opening statement could be interpreted as a “subject matter waiver,” meaning she had made factual statements about the case that then opened the door for the committee to ask her for further details.
But to do that they would have to hold her in contempt, and get a judge to rule in favor of it.
Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor, adamantly disagreed. “The law is clear that a witness does not waive her Fifth Amendment rights not to testify as to facts by asserting that she is innocent of the wrongdoing with which she is accused,” he wrote in an e-mail.
In an interview, Taylor said Lerner’s comments—which gave a thumbnail sketch of her division’s operation and the two investigations it has spurred in the offices of the Treasury inspector general and FBI — didn’t delve into the facts. “It simply said, ‘This is what you guys accused me of, I’m not guilty of it.’”
Still, Issa made it clear Wednesday afternoon he may summon Lerner again to respond to lawmakers’ inquiries. “I am looking into the possibility of re-calling her and insisting she answer questions in light of a waiver,” he told his colleagues. “For that reason, and with your understanding and indulgence, this hearing stands in recess, not adjourned.”
Taylor said he had not engaged in a discussion with Issa’s staff about a possible grant of limited immunity in exchange for Lerner testifying.
Regardless of the legal niceties surrounding Lerner’s invocation of the Fifth, Brand wrote that it’s always a good idea to keep one’s opening remarks short under such circumstances.
“As a matter of advice,” he wrote, “I advise witnesses to restrict themselves in asserting the privilege and reserve any additional comments to those outside the congressional proceeding.”
From what I gather, you can't make statements about a subject and then plead the Fifth in response to that very subject.
Once you open that box, you've waived your Fifth Amendment right and waived your "self-incrimination" right on that subject.
The question here is that it appears to be a grey area...because testifying in front of Congress isn't the same as testifying in a court... I think. o.O
I remember reading about McCarthyism during the Communist scare that the hearings in which suspected Communists were grilled by the House... they tried to trap people by saying, look, you're a Fifth Amendment communist, you won't answer any questions"...
The people would then say we'd love to answer your questions but we can't because if we do, we waive the 5th and then you'll ask us who our friends are and who else was a member of the Communist Party...
Breotan wrote: The thing I'm wondering is, what are the penalties for refusing to testify?
If the comittee chooses to believe that Lener waived her 5th amendment right by speaking, then they can hold her in contempt and can place her in Congressional Jail (yes, there is one).
whembly wrote: If the comittee chooses to believe that Lener waived her 5th amendment right by speaking, then they can hold her in contempt and can place her in Congressional Jail (yes, there is one)..
Alternately, they can (and I bet will) offer her limited immunity to compel her to testify.
Her being "paid" doesn't bother me as much as her continuing any governmental function. Now she's on leave... let her stew a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: If the comittee chooses to believe that Lener waived her 5th amendment right by speaking, then they can hold her in contempt and can place her in Congressional Jail (yes, there is one)..
Alternately, they can (and I bet will) offer her transactional immunity to compel her to testify.
"transaction immunity"... what do you mean by that?
I'm not sure if that'll work... if they give her immunity, couldn't she just say: "Yep, it was ALL me".
Unless you meant conditional immunity, meaning she fesses up to who order'ed her to do this.
I'll leave this here rather than give you my, perhaps inaccurate, definition. Especially when I was wrong and meant "limited" not transactional. I'll edit my prior post.
I will say that essentially, they agree not to prosecute her in exchange for her truthful testimony. Emphasis mine, because if she tries to "pull a Wee-bey" and take the fall for everyone she can later be prosecuted anyway if it's later shown she was untruthful.
whembly wrote: If the comittee chooses to believe that Lener waived her 5th amendment right by speaking, then they can hold her in contempt and can place her in Congressional Jail (yes, there is one)..
Alternately, they can (and I bet will) offer her limited immunity to compel her to testify.
Interesting. Although I will say that a blind man on a galloping horse could see her ploy from a mile off re. the immunity
Ouze wrote: I'll leave this here rather than give you my, perhaps inaccurate, definition. Especially when I was wrong and meant "limited" not transactional. I'll edit my prior post.
I will say that essentially, they agree not to prosecute her in exchange for her truthful testimony. Emphasis mine, because if she tries to "pull a Wee-bey" and take the fall for everyone she can later be prosecuted anyway if it's later shown she was untruthful.
Gotcha!
SO if she accepts immunity, she'd better be truthful.
Saw this on my twitter feed recently:
Sen. Grassley stmt: "My understanding is the new acting IRS commissioner asked for Ms. Lerner’s resignation, and she refused to resign."
A series of letters suggests that senior IRS official Lois Lerner was directly involved in the agency’s targeting of conservative groups as recently as April 2012, more than nine months after she first learned of the activity.
A series of letters suggests that senior IRS official Lois Lerner was directly involved in the agency’s targeting of conservative groups as recently as April 2012, more than nine months after she first learned of the activity.
Damn Having your name on those letters is one thing, but your signature She may hope that she gets immunity now, otherwise she may be compelled to talk
IRS Scandal: The inexplicable raid nearly two years ago on a guitar maker for using allegedly illegal wood that its competitors also used was another targeting by this administration of its political enemies.
On Aug. 24, 2011, federal agents executed four search warrants on Gibson Guitar Corp. facilities in Nashville and Memphis, Tenn., and seized several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. One of the top makers of acoustic and electric guitars, including the iconic Les Paul introduced in 1952, Gibson was accused of using wood illegally obtained in violation of the century-old Lacey Act, which outlaws trafficking in flora and fauna the harvesting of which had broken foreign laws.
In one raid, the feds hauled away ebony fingerboards, alleging they violated Madagascar law. Gibson responded by obtaining the sworn word of the African island's government that no law had been broken.
In another raid, the feds found materials imported from India, claiming they too moved across the globe in violation of Indian law.
Gibson's response was that the feds had simply misinterpreted Indian law.
Interestingly, one of Gibson's leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Co. According to C.F. Martin's catalog, several of their guitars contain "East Indian Rosewood," which is the exact same wood in at least 10 of Gibson's guitars. So why were they not also raided and their inventory of foreign wood seized?
Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson's chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians.
Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.
By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles.
"We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted," Juszkiewicz said at the time, adding the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact (from) a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the government used violent and hostile means."
That includes what Gibson described as "two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."
Gibson, fearing a bankrupting legal battle, settled and agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty to the U.S. Government. It also agreed to make a "community service payment" of $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — to be used on research projects or tree-conservation activities.
The feds in return agreed to let Gibson resume importing wood while they sought "clarification" from India.
The feds say they acted to save the environment from greedy plunderers. America is a trivial importer of rosewood from Madagascar and India. Ninety-five percent of it goes to China, where it is used to make luxury items like $800,000 beds. So putting Gibson out of business wasn't going to do a whole lot to save their forests.
Juszkiewicz' claim that his company was "inappropriately targeted" is eerily similar to the claims by Tea Party, conservative, pro-life and religious groups that they were targeted by the IRS for special scrutiny because they sought to exercise their First Amendment rights to band together in vocal opposition to the administration's policies and the out-of-control growth of government and its power.
The Gibson Guitar raid, the IRS intimidation of Tea Party groups and the fraudulently obtained warrant naming Fox News reporter James Rosen as an "aider, abettor, co-conspirator" in stealing government secrets are but a few examples of the abuse of power by the Obama administration to intimidate those on its enemies list.
The more I read that, what happened, and the resolution for Gibson the more I scratch my head.
Maybe I've got it wrong but; Gibson is raided by federal agents accusing them of importing contraband wood, federal agents threaten to close Gibson, fearing bankruptcy Gibson bite the bullet and accept the fines..... but the federal agents say that Gibson can continue to import the same wood that was the cause of the raid while they get clarification from India as to the wood's provenience
Surely the federal agents should have made certain that the wood was contraband before the raid. Fining someone before you've established this fact sounds somewhat sketchy
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The more I read that, what happened, and the resolution for Gibson the more I scratch my head.
Maybe I've got it wrong but; Gibson is raided by federal agents accusing them of importing contraband wood, federal agents threaten to close Gibson, fearing bankruptcy Gibson bite the bullet and accept the fines..... but the federal agents say that Gibson can continue to import the same wood that was the cause of the raid while they get clarification from India as to the wood's provenience
Surely the federal agents should have made certain that the wood was contraband before the raid. Fining someone before you've established this fact sounds somewhat sketchy
That's exactly my read on that too...
While it all went down, everyone (reportors, pundist, guitar aficionados) were very confused about this.
The White House insists President Obama is "outraged" by the "inappropriate" targeting and harassment of conservative groups. If true, it's a remarkable turnaround for a man who helped pioneer those tactics.
On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.
What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, "its officers and directors," and its "anonymous donors." Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a "knowing and willful violation" of election law, and wanted "action to enforce against criminal violations."
AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer's response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the "sham" AIP's "illegal electoral purpose."
Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).
The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending "warning" letters to 10,000 GOP donors, "hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." The letters would alert "right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives." As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: "We're going to put them at risk."
The Bauer letters were the Obama campaign's high-profile contribution to this effort—though earlier, in the spring of 2008, Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC against the American Leadership Project, a group backing Hillary Clinton in the primary. "There's going to be a reckoning here," he had warned publicly. "It's going to be rough—it's going to be rough on the officers, it's going to be rough on the employees, it's going to be rough on the donors. . . Whether it's at the FEC or in a broader criminal inquiry, those donors will be asked questions." The campaign similarly attacked a group supporting John Edwards.
American Leadership head (and Democrat) Jason Kinney would rail that Mr. Bauer had gone from "credible legal authority" to "political hatchet man"—but the damage was done. As Politico reported in August 2008, Mr. Bauer's words had "the effect of scaring [Clinton and Edwards] donors and consultants," even if they hadn't yet "result[ed] in any prosecution."
As general counsel to the Obama re-election campaign, Mr. Bauer used the same tactics on pro-Romney groups. The Obama campaign targeted private citizens who had donated to Romney groups. Democratic senators demanded that the IRS investigate these organizations.
None of this proves that Mr. Obama was involved in the IRS targeting of conservative nonprofits. But it does help explain how we got an environment in which the IRS thought this was acceptable.
The rise of conservative organizations (to match liberal groups that had long played in politics), and their effectiveness in the 2004 election (derided broadly by liberals as "swift boating"), led to a new and organized campaign in 2008 to chill conservative donors and groups via the threat of government investigation and prosecution. The tone in any organization—a charity, a corporation, the U.S. government—is set at the top.
This history also casts light on White House claims that it was clueless about the IRS's targeting. As Huffington Post's Howard Fineman wrote this week: "With two winning presidential campaigns built on successful grassroots fundraising, with a former White House counsel (in 2010-11) who is one of the Democrats' leading experts on campaign law (Bob Bauer), with former top campaign officials having been ensconced as staffers in the White House . . . it's hard to imagine that the Obama inner circle was oblivious to the issue of what the IRS was doing in Cincinnati." More like inconceivable.
And this history exposes the left's hollow claim that the IRS mess rests on Citizens United. The left was targeting conservative groups and donors well before the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling on independent political expenditures by corporations.
If the country wants to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, it must first remember the context for this abuse. That context leads to this White House.
Major news outlets in recent days have reported that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is raising money from the private sector—including from health-care executives—for use by a private entity that is helping to implement ObamaCare. The entity, Enroll America, is run by a former White House aide.
The Washington Post quoted an HHS spokesman last week saying, "We requested additional money [from Congress] . . . but we didn't receive any additional funding for the exchanges. So we had to come up with Plan B."
My immediate thought was: Isn't "Plan B" what got Oliver North in trouble during the 1980s?
While working in the Reagan administration, Col. North was accused of using money raised in an arms-for-hostages swap with Iran to fund and work with private organizations providing military support to rebel armies in Nicaragua. North was found to have done this even though Congress had refused to provide funding and prohibited spending any available funds for such purposes.
A select Joint Committee of Congress investigated what became known as Iran-Contra. The problem was not just where the money came from, but also where and how it was spent. Article I of the U.S. Constitution does not permit government officials to spend money that Congress has refused to authorize or appropriate. Federal laws such as the Anti-Deficiency Act make this behavior unlawful.
There is, of course, a difference between Nicaraguan rebels and health care. With Iran-Contra, Congress had also prohibited support for the rebels, while in the case of health-care funding, Congress has refused to provide the amounts that the administration has asked for. But the principle and the legal prohibitions are the same.
The report of the bipartisan majority of the Iran-Contra Select Committee summarized the law in November 1987: "The Constitution does prohibit receipt and collection of such funds by this government absent an appropriation. This appropriation may not be evaded by use of a nominally private entity if the entity is in reality an arm of the government and the government is able to direct how the money is spent."
The report also said: "Congress's exclusive control over the expenditure of funds cannot legally be evaded though the use of gifts or donations to the executive branch. Were it otherwise, a president whose appropriation requests were rejected by Congress could raise money through private sources or from other countries for armies, military actions, arms systems or even domestic programs." Note: even domestic programs.
In July 1987, President Reagan's Secretary of State, George Shultz, testified before Congress regarding the Iran-Contra affair: "You cannot spend funds the Congress doesn't either authorize you to obtain or appropriate. That is what the Constitution says, and we have to stick to it. Now, I will join everybody in saying that sometimes it gets doggone frustrating with what the Congress does or doesn't do, and I can be critical. However, that's the system, and we have to accept it, and then we have an argument about it and try to persuade you otherwise."
Our country's Founders—at least most of them—did not want a king. So they included in the Constitution a Congress and a Bill of Rights to curb executive power. Congress's exclusive power of the purse is the strongest such curb.
The Obama administration is not the first to chafe under these restraints, but it has been among the most flagrant in ignoring them.
To avoid scrutiny by appropriations committees, the administration seems to have created more czars than the Romanovs. It has propounded far-reaching executive orders—on immigration, for example—and used a simple waiver authority to impose new federal education mandates on states, in effect, turning the U.S. Department of Education into a national school board. To circumvent the Senate's constitutional role to advise and consent on nominations, President Obama has made so-called recess appointments when the Senate wasn't in recess—appointments that two federal appellate courts agreed would be unconstitutional.
Last week, chairmen and ranking Republicans on five congressional committees in both houses of Congress asked the Government Accountability Office to find out the facts. Is Ms. Sebelius raising funds for a private entity and then coordinating with that entity to do something Congress has refused to authorize, or for which it has refused to appropriate funds? And is she raising money from organizations she regulates, in violation of ethics laws?
If the money being raised by Ms. Sebelius is being spent to do an end-run around Congress, then the Obama administration had better brush up on its Iran-Contra history.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So we aren't allowed to speculate on events as they happen? I would have thought that invoking the right not to self incriminate could reasonably be seen as not wanting to say something that you could later be prosecuted for by the Department of Justice.
You're perfectly welcome to speculate on events as they happen.
Just don't go and y'know...try to wrap it up as though you know what you're talking about or are a media presenter.
Maybe you have another slant on her pleading the 5th that you would like to share with us, you may be seeing something that others are not.
There's no "slant" about it. She plead the 5th. That's her right. Why she did it?
Who knows at this point.
We might get to find out. People are saying that, because of her opening statement before pleading the 5th, Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights by doing so:
Another person who I'd like to see Issa and company question is Harry Reid about where he got the info about Mitt Romney not paying his taxes during the 2012 election. I have a feeling that it's linked to this IRS scandal somehow.
Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups. At least one letter requesting information about one of the groups bears the signature of Lois Lerner, the suspended director of the IRS Exempt Organizations department in Washington.
Jay Sekulow, an attorney representing 27 conservative political advocacy organizations that applied to the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status, provided some of the letters to NBC News. He said the groups’ contacts with the IRS prove that the practices went beyond a few “front line” employees in the Cincinnati office, as the IRS has maintained.
“We've dealt with 15 agents, including tax law specialists -- that's lawyers -- from four different offices, including (the) Treasury (Department) in Washington, D.C.,” Sekulow said. “So the idea that this is a couple of rogue agents in Cincinnati is not correct.”
Among the letters were several that bore return IRS addresses other than Cincinnati, including "Department of the Treasury / Internal Revenue Service / Washington, D.C.," and the signatures of IRS officials higher up the chain. Two letters with "Department of the Treasury / Internal Revenue Service / Washington, D.C." letterhead were signed by "Tax Law Specialist(s)" from Exempt Organizations Technical Group 1 and Technical Group 2. Lerner’s signature, which appeared to be a stamp rather than an actual signature, appeared on a letter requesting additional information from the Ohio Liberty Council Corp.
Lerner has become one of the public faces of the controversy after refusing to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last Wednesday, citing her Constitutional Fifth Amendment rights after reading a brief statement: “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, violated IRS regulations or provided false information to this or any other committee.”
She was put on administrative leave at the end of last week after reportedly refusing to resign at Obama administration’s request. She is continuing to collect federal paychecks on her almost $180,000 annual salary, though at least one Republican senator, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, is urging the agency to speed up the process and fire her.
In the two weeks since the IRS acknowledged it targeted conservative organizations seeking status as tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations for additional scrutiny, many Republicans have sought to link the agency’s actions to the White House. In an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post on May 22, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote that “the administration has been extremely creative in employing throughout the federal government the sorts of intimidation tactics that were used at the IRS.”
The White House has dismissed suggestions it was aware of the targeting, saying President Barack Obama only learned of the issue when it broke in the news on May 10. White House spokesman Jay Carney has since deflected most questions about the scandal, saying it would be inappropriate to comment until an FBI inquiry into the agency’s actions – one of five separate government investigations -- is concluded.
For its part, the IRS has declined additional comment beyond its congressional testimony -- including former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller's testimony that IRS employees didn’t have partisan motives and only made "foolish mistakes ... trying to be more efficient” -- and other previously released public statements, including its response to a Treasury inspector general (see pages 49-51) and a Q&A on 501 (c) groups it published on its website.
But attorneys for some of the targeted groups’ provided documentation and two IRS employees in the Cincinnati office made statements to NBC News that call into question parts of the official explanation Americans have heard from the IRS so far.
Sekulow, who worked with the office of the chief counsel of the IRS in the early 1980s as a trial lawyer representing the IRS on tax-exempt cases, said the number of groups he’s heard from, and the scope of the requests for information the IRS sent them, persuaded him “that this was not something that was just created at an agent level, that this was certainly higher up.”
After reviewing all the IRS communications his clients received, Sekulow said he believes the IRS was engaged in a coordinated and deliberate attempt to silence, or at least stifle conservative organizations, he told NBC News.
Sekulow also said the practices continued well after May 2012, when the IRS has claimed they had stopped. Sekulow said 10 of the organizations he represents still have not received determinations from the IRS on their applications for tax-exempt status as 501 C (1)(4) organizations. He provided NBC News with a letter the IRS sent to one of his clients on May 6 requesting more information.
'Decisions ... made in Washington'
Cleta Mitchell, another attorney representing conservative groups that allege they were targeted, said an IRS agent in Cincinnati told her a “task force” IRS office in Washington, D.C., was making the decisions about the processing of applications, and that she subsequently dealt with IRS representatives there.
“(The IRS agent in Cincinnati) told me that in fact the case would be transferred to a special task force out of Washington, and that he was told – he was the originally assigned agent – that he wasn't allowed to make decisions, the decisions were all going to be made in Washington,” Mitchell said. “I know that this process was going on in Washington because I've dealt with those people.”
One of Mitchell’s clients, Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote, a conservative elections monitoring organization, applied for tax-exempt status for the group in July 2010. She said that when she asked the IRS two years later why it was taking so long to get a decision, agents told her Washington was to blame.
“We’ve dealt with four separate analysts and their explanation for the way our case has been handled runs the gamut from their not having another organization like True the Vote to compare to – so they had to develop new questions and new criteria -- all the way through to the fact that they were taking their orders from Washington and were waiting for Washington’s direction as to what steps to take next,” she said. “They were caught up in a process that seemed to be much bigger than Cincinnati and bigger than any single individual.” Mitchell, Engelbrecht’s attorney, said Engelbrecht’s case also raised questions about whether the IRS had subjected some applicants to other federal government scrutiny and action, beyond their IRS application.
Engelbrecht told NBC News that soon after she filed for tax-exempt status for True the Vote, the IRS audited her personal and business taxes for the first time, and her manufacturing business was visited by two other federal agencies, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Her tax-exempt application still hasn't been approved after three years. She's now suing the IRS.
Sekulow said he also is preparing to sue the IRS in federal court this week, on behalf of the 16 groups he represents.
“The only way to get this resolved is to go to federal court,” Sekulow said, “because that's the only thing that's going to compel the IRS to comply with the law.”
Two IRS Cincinnati employees who have talked to NBC News dispute one part of the IRS’ explanation, saying that application of inappropriate selection criteria and the extra scrutiny for Tea Party and other conservative political advocacy organizations was not the work of a few low-level “rogue” employees.
But they also have told NBC News that they believe there was no political or partisan motivation for the targeting or scrutiny.
"We're outstanding public servants, dedicated to our craft and to the public we serve,” said one current IRS Cincinnati employee contacted at home over the weekend, who agreed to speak to NBC News on the condition of anonymity. “To suggest that we're 'rogue' should be considered slander.”
Asked about the motivations for the targeting, the employee said, “I trust my management team."
Bonnie Esrig, a 38-year IRS veteran and a manager in the Cincinnati office until she retired from the IRS in January, also has told NBC News that decisions about how to handle cases came from management, and that all employees were subjected to considerable oversight. She also said that she believes there was no political or partisan motivation for the added scrutiny.
Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups.
Were they scrutinized because they were conservative, or because they were political?
Washington (CNN) – The Internal Revenue Service has told House GOP investigators they have identified 88 IRS employees who may have documents relevant to the congressional investigation into targeting of conservative groups, according to a congressional source familiar with the investigation.
The IRS asked these employees to preserve all the "responsive documents" on their computers, and it has been in the process of collecting it all to comply with congressional requests for information. The IRS missed its May 21st deadline to turn over documents to the House Ways and Means Committee.
The same source said the IRS argues it missed its deadline because of the scope of documents it is collecting.
whembly wrote: I want to know who orchestrated this profiling....because 88+ (so far) IRS agents didn't do this out of the blue.
Some serious heads need to roll.
Washington (CNN) – The Internal Revenue Service has told House GOP investigators they have identified 88 IRS employees who may have documents relevant to the congressional investigation into targeting of conservative groups, according to a congressional source familiar with the investigation.
The IRS asked these employees to preserve all the "responsive documents" on their computers, and it has been in the process of collecting it all to comply with congressional requests for information. The IRS missed its May 21st deadline to turn over documents to the House Ways and Means Committee.
The same source said the IRS argues it missed its deadline because of the scope of documents it is collecting.
The Obama Scandalpalooza continues. It’s gotten so bad that some pundits have even suggested that they’re bringing everything out at once to induce “scandal fatigue” and make it all fade away. Well, maybe — there’s certainly a lot:
1) The journalist-snooping scandal: The Justice Department spied on phone records of numerous AP reporters, as well as numerous Fox News reporters — and, in at least one case, a reporter’s parents — as part of a leak-plugging investigation. In seeking the subpoenas, and to keep reporters from finding out about them, Attorney General Eric Holder’s flunkies engaged in a bit of judge-shopping until they got the answer they wanted. This has led to calls for Holder’s resignation even from liberals like law professor Jonathan Turley.
2) The IRS scandal: Way back in 2009, President Obama “joked” about targeting his enemies for tax audits. The next year, the IRS started targeting Tea Party groups for extremely intrusive IRS questioning — including questions about books they read, prayers said and names of high school and college students attending their training sessions. Many were basically shut down by this onslaught, leaving them effectively (and conveniently) neutralized for the 2012 election season.
According to White House visitor logs, Acting IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman visited the White House 118 times in 2010 and 2011 (a bit more than twice a week, on average) [whembly: !!!!!!!!!]. His predecessor, who oversaw the agency under Bush, visited the White House only once in his entire career.
There could be an innocent explanation for Schulman’s regular trips — but he hasn’t supplied it. Asked why he visited the White House so often, he said something about taking his kids to the annual Easter Egg Roll.
3) Benghazi: The 2012 Obama Campaign’s line was that al Qaeda was defeated and terror no longer a major threat. Then the US consulate was overrun by, oops, al Qaeda fighters on last Sept. 11, leaving four Americans dead.
The White House, though it knew better, blamed the whole thing on an obscure YouTube video, and saw the video’s filmmaker hustled off to jail for “probation violations.” Since then, it’s become clear that Team Obama knowingly misrepresented events to Congress and the American public.
4) The Sebelius Shakedown: With Congress not appropriating money for ObamaCare implementation, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went to people and companies regulated by her department and asked for “donations.” While this may have been legal, it’s plainly inappropriate for a high official to ask for “donations” from people she regulates.
Tired already? I don’t blame you, and I haven’t even mentioned the Pigford scandal, involving payments out of the Treasury’s “Judgment Fund” as part of a settlement scheme that seems rather iffy, even to The New York Times.
I’m reminded of the old “dense pack” missile-basing idea from the 1980s: The idea was to put missile silos close enough together that if one was hit by an atomic bomb, the mushroom cloud would protect the other silos from incoming attacks.
Likewise, it’s argued, by bringing all these scandals out at once — the IRS scandal actually first hit the news thanks to a question planted by IRS official Lois Lerner — the Obama administration may have a few bad weeks, but ensures by the sheer proliferation of scandal that no one of these will get the attention it deserves.
That might work, if you think of scandals as things that, like Watergate, knock out a presidency. But most don’t. The proliferation of scandal in most administrations — think George W. Bush or Bill Clinton — is more like acid rain. There’s no knockout, just an erosion of popularity and clout.
That’s what’s most likely to happen here: The Obama presidency won’t end with a bang, but it just might end with a whimper, worn away by the drip, drip of scandal.
azazel the cat wrote: The fact that benghazi is being attached here seriously undermines the credibility of everything else.
The fact that you keep trying to defend your ideological team is telling...
We still don't know what the feth happened...
And yet, it's proven that the WH knew that it was a terrorist attack from the get-go, and yet, they spent two weeks blaming that youtube movie on the whole incident.
It was a political response that I want them brought to tasked for.. Don't worry, the WH has till July to provide more information to Congress. Stay tuned.
Also, are you seriously still keeping this thing alive?
Wife of former IRS chief a top adviser to left-leaning DC group
The former IRS commissioner who ran the agency when it was singling out conservative groups is married to a senior adviser for a prominent left-leaning political organization focused largely on campaign finance reform.
Ex-Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who faced a tough round of questioning by Congress last month on the IRS scandal, has denied knowing that the agency targeted Tea Party groups between 2010 and 2012. But he faced new questions following a report that he visited the White House, or the adjacent executive office buildings, at least 157 times during the Obama administration.
Amid the scrutiny, it turns out his wife, Susan L. Anderson, is a senior program adviser for the Washington-based group Public Campaign.
The group bills itself as nonpartisan, and states it is working with “a broad range of organizations” to reform campaign-finance rules.
However, the group receives much of its funding from such liberal groups as the Ford Foundation, Barbra Streisand’s The Streisand Foundation and Health Care for America NOW, a coalition of labor unions supporting ObamaCare that includes the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, according to the Public Campaign website.
In addition, Public Campaign appeared in 2011 to leave little to the imagination about its views on campaign finance – that the wealthiest Americans, specifically the top 1 percent, are trying to buy or influence elections by secretly donating to political groups.
The group produced a “holiday card” video in which one person said: “Sure my kids might get asthma because Congress keeps doing dirty energy’s bidding, but the Koch brothers need their third home.”
David and Charles Koch, successful businessmen aligned with conservative and libertarian causes, have such nonprofit groups as the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation and support Tea Party-tied heavyweights like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.
When the scandal over the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups broke, Public Campaign also appeared to defend the tax agency.
Nick Nyhart, chief executive for Public Campaign, suggested to ABC News that the misdeeds of a “few bad apples” within the agency will “make it harder for those questions to be asked without claims of bias.”
Anderson has also been a supporter and apparent participant in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
She participated in Occupy DC events and tweeted such messages as “DC, good morning! Come down to the (National) Mall and tell your 99 percent story.”
Shulman and Anderson met as students at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Shulman was appointed commissioner by former President George W. Bush.
He reportedly logged more than 100 visits to the White House under Obama, a claim he did not deny during congressional testimony last month on the IRS scandal. That number refers to the number of times Shulman was cleared to visit.
Now did he have to declare his wife's profession and her job? I know that in at least one of my jobs you had to disclose anything that may be a conflict of interests - such as family members working in a related field.
azazel the cat wrote: The fact that benghazi is being attached here seriously undermines the credibility of everything else.
The fact that you keep trying to defend your ideological team is telling...
My ideological team doesn't exist in the American political system.
Coulda fooled me... I do remember distinctly our conversations on the merits of Obamacare...
Do you really think that if a person considers something closer to universal healthcare better than nothing at all, that implies wearing a Team Democrat jersey? That's the kind of stupid idea that gets bred from a two-party system.
azazel the cat wrote: My ideological team doesn't exist in the American political system.
I'm not trolling but could you tell me what your ideological team is (even if it's just a PM) as it seems to be that which drives many of the discussions that we have, and I'd be interested to see what influences you.
Treasury IG official compares IRS scandal to Nixon
The Treasury Inspector General who uncovered the improper targeting of Tea Party groups by the Internal Revenue Service said Monday he was stunned by what his investigation uncovered.
Russell George, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), said the targeting at the IRS his probe discovered was "unprecedented," and the closest comparison that came to mind was the targeting of political enemies by the administration of Richard Nixon. [whembly: !!!!!!]
"During the Nixon administration, there were attempts to use the Internal Revenue Services in manners that might be comparable in terms of misusing it. I'm not saying the actions taken here are comparable," he told a House Appropriations subcommittee. "This is unprecedented."
The TIGTA report, released in April, has set off a blizzard of controversy on Capitol Hill, and has led to the resignation or removal of several top IRS officials.
George testified alongside Danny Werfel, who took over the IRS as acting commissioner roughly two weeks ago, following the resignation of the former Acting Commissioner Steven Miller.
Werfel, previously a top official at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), called the activity at the IRS unacceptable, and vowed to conduct a comprehensive review of IRS practices to make sure it never happened again.
A key question swirling around the controversy is exactly how IRS employees in Cincinnati came to identify tax-exempt applications for extra scrutiny based in part on Tea Party affiliation decided to take on the practice. Congressional Republicans have expressed disbelief the practice could have been created by low level employees acting out of bounds. George said in conducting his investigation of the practice, IRS employees were asked who gave the direction, and no one would answer the question.
I'm almost calling BS, because it's really, REALY hard to reverse those 'redacted' efforts on those documents. They can only be achieved if the document's "meta data" is accessible.
If this is true, this is what I called a "smoking gun"...
The chairman of an anti-gay marriage group testified Tuesday that his organization has proof that the IRS leaked confidential donor details last year, calling for prosecution into what he described as a "felony."
"This just smells and I hope this committee gets to the bottom of it," John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, said at a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee.
Eastman testified Tuesday alongside several Tea Party activists who all claim they were targeted by the IRS. The Tea Party groups offered a first-hand account of how the IRS singled them out when they applied for tax-exempt status, asking them onerous questions and dragging out their application process.
But Eastman shed light on another potential controversy involving the IRS -- the unauthorized disclosure of tax document information.
He recalled how information on their donors was leaked last year and published on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, which Eastman described as their "principal political opponent" on the marriage issue. The documents showed Mitt Romney's political committee as a donor. [whembly: !!!!!!!]
Asked by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., if he had "proof" that the IRS leaked that material, Eastman said that he did.
Eastman explained that while some information was redacted in the posted version, his group's "forensic" specialists were able to strip layers from the document and found "the original document that was posted there had originated from within the IRS." [whembly: so, hard copies and not electronic records??]
He said the version had "internal IRS stamps," which "only exist within the IRS."
Eastman added: "You can imagine our shock and disgust over this. ... We jealously guard our donors."
He later alleged the information was "deliberately" provided to their opponents.
"If that's inadvertent, the word no longer means anything," he said, claiming his group has been "stonewalled" in its request for an investigation.
After a series of hearings on Capitol Hill where current and former IRS officials testified on the agency's actions, this is the first to feature alleged victims.
Karen Kinney, with the San Fernando Valley Patriots, described how she got a form from the IRS with 35 items divided into 80 "sub-points of inquiry," and was given just 20 days to comply.
The leader of a small South Carolina Tea Party group said her organization first applied for tax-exempt status in 2010 -- and is still waiting for the application to be processed.
Dianne Belsom, president of the Laurens County Tea Party, said her group in rural South Carolina has about 60 members.
For more than 18 months during the 2010 and 2012 election campaigns, IRS agents in a Cincinnati office singled out Tea Party and other conservative groups for additional scrutiny when they sought tax-exempt status, according to a report by J. Russell George, the Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration.
The report said Tea Party groups were asked inappropriate questions about their donors, their political affiliations and their positions on political issues. The additional scrutiny delayed applications for an average of nearly two years, making it difficult for many of the groups to raise money.
GOP appropriators on Monday said they would use the IRS’s purse strings to get answers about how and why it targeted conservative groups.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said his panel may impose conditions on IRS funding, calling the targeting tantamount to a political enemies list that harkens back to “a dark page in our past.”
Other Republicans on the panel wondered how Congress, in the words of Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), “should spend one more dime” on the agency without having more answers on how the tax agency is currently operating.
“We will not rest until this is done,” Rogers told Danny Werfel, the acting IRS chief, at an Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Monday.
“And I don’t need to remind you or anybody else that the power of the purse rests with the Congress, and we’re prepared to use that purse to get to the truth.”
Werfel, in his first testimony on Capitol Hill in his new role, stressed that he was pressing ahead to fix the problems that allowed the agency to single out Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status, but also insisted that examination would take time.
The acting IRS chief, still less than two weeks into his new role, said that he was prepared to defend President Obama’s budget, which calls for a roughly $1 billion increase in the agency’s funding.
But given what’s happened with the agency’s oversight of tax-exempt groups, Werfel also said it was the “wrong starting point” to say that part of the IRS needed more money.
“The chairman started this hearing by saying, ‘How can we give another dime?’ And my answer is, let’s explore together what’s going on in this process and figure out what the right funding is,” Werfel said. “But I can’t sit here and say we need more money for that aspect of IRS operations without working with you on the review.”
While the acting IRS chief received tough talk from Republicans about the agency’s funding, he did not receive the same sort of grilling as senior IRS officials who were at the agency while the targeting occurred, like Doug Shulman and Steven Miller.
Werfel made his debut on Capitol Hill as new fronts open in the controversy surrounding the agency, with a new audit from Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration expected to show on Tuesday that the IRS spent millions of dollars on conferences.
That same inspector general outlined, in a report last month, the targeting of conservative groups.
With lawmakers back in Washington, conservative groups are scheduled to testify on Tuesday before the House Ways and Means Committee on their treatment by the IRS.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has loudly made the case in recent days that officials in Washington — and not the embattled office in Cincinnati — directed the targeting. Democrats have called Issa’s claims overblown.
Democrats at Monday’s hearing offered little cover to the IRS but also sought to broaden the scope of the inquiry to reach beyond the years of the Obama administration and to the tax agency’s general oversight of tax-exempt groups.
“It’s hard to shock and awe somebody who’s from Chicago,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.). “I get it. But this is getting there.”
Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) said any probe of the IRS targeting should extend back into the administration of President George W. Bush.
He said the complaints Tea Party groups are raising about improper targeting for scrutiny echo those raised by groups that were opposed to the war in Iraq. And he cautioned Werfel against being so open about his funding levels.
For his part, Werfel maintained that he and most IRS staffers were appalled by the current controversy and that there were still many unanswered questions about how the agency came to single out conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.
“The public is rightly concerned and upset — as am I —about the inappropriate and unacceptable actions,” he said.
Werfel now is in the midst of a 30-day, top-to-bottom review of the IRS, undertaken at the request of Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, that he said would try to identify what went wrong and to hold agency staffers accountable.
“Like everyone else, I’m frustrated, too,” Werfel said. “I want these facts to emerge quickly.”
Under questioning from Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.), Werfel also asserted there has been accountability at the agency and later said the agency was working to sift through some of the tax-exempt applications that should have already been dealt with.
Three IRS officials had either been placed on leave or were exiting the agency, including Miller, the former acting commissioner, and the public servant at the center of the controversy, Lois Lerner.
Russell George, the inspector general for tax administration, told the House Appropriations subcommittee that officials in the Cincinnati office would not say who ordered the targeting.
The inspector general also stressed that there was no evidence the White House played a role in the targeting but that his office is continuing to review whether the IRS’s actions were politically motivated.
Well... the first thing I'd do is completely slash their ridiculous conference budget.
So the IRS spent man hours (at tax payer expense) targeting right leaning groups, and spending huge sums on conferences, and now they're coming cap in hand asking for more money? Doesn't sound like they've been under budgeted so far.
Just out of curiosity though, I've noticed that the Ohio and California offices implicated in the scandal are not mentioned so much. Have these offices been exonerated?
A warehouse maintained by contractors for the Environmental Protection Agency contained secret rooms full of exercise equipment, televisions and couches, according to an internal audit.
EPA’s inspector general found contractors used partitions, screens and piled up boxes to hide the rooms from security cameras in the 70,000 square-foot building located in Landover, Md. The warehouse -- used for inventory storage -- is owned by the General Services Administration and leased to the EPA for about $750,000 per year.
The EPA has issued a stop work order to Apex Logistics LLC, the responsible contractor, ensuring the company’s workers no longer have access to the site -- EPA security officials escorted contractor personnel off the premises on May 17 -- and ending all payments on the contract.
Since awarding the contract in May 2007, EPA has paid Apex Logistics about $5.3 million, most of which went to labor costs. Conditions at the facility “raise questions about time charges made by warehouse employees under the contract,” the report said.
“The warehouse contained multiple unauthorized and hidden personal spaces created by and for the workers that included televisions, refrigerators, radios, microwaves, chairs and couches,” the IG report said. “These spaces contained personal items, including photos, pin ups, calendars, clothing, books, magazines and videos.”
The agency has completed an inventory of the warehouse’s contents and segregated all surplus furniture. EPA has committed to conducting an agency-wide review of all warehouse and storage facility operations.
In addition to the secret rooms, the IG found an incomplete and inaccurate recordkeeping system; numerous potential security and safety hazards, including an open box of passports; and “deplorable conditions” -- such as corrosion, vermin feces and “pervasive” mold.
EPA acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe said in a letter to the inspector general the agency has taken “immediate, aggressive actions” in response to the findings.
“The EPA is committed to addressing the previous conditions at the warehouse and implementing institutional protections to ensure those conditions do not recur at this facility or any other used by the agency,” Perciasepe wrote.
d-usa wrote: Good idea, lets stop funding to the military until this sexual assault stuff is taken care off, and to states that target homosexual groups...
O.o
Nah... I'd abolish the IRS for a new department called "ARS" (American Revenue Service) and start over there...
Maybe, go with a tier'ed flat tax? (waves, ducks and runs!)
EPA... same, recreate it.
For both department, make is so that if punishment needs to be dealt, go in front of a judge for approval.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So the IRS spent man hours (at tax payer expense) targeting right leaning groups, and spending huge sums on conferences, and now they're coming cap in hand asking for more money?
Again, is there evidence of this happening which extends beyond political nicety and posturing?
dogma wrote: Again, is there evidence of this happening which extends beyond political nicety and posturing?
You mean other than ignoring the IRS admitting that they embarked on this behaviour? And their apologies? And the resignations? And the firing? And people refusing to answer Congress? And the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's comments? And that Obama said that what the IRS did was "inexcusable"
If you're still content to ignore all that (and likely much more besides) then there isn't much point in trying to have a discussion on this topic with you.
I don't have any problem with what they did to the Tea Party applicants.
If you are applying for a tax status that prohibits focusing on political issues, while putting a big politically charged name on your application, then you should expect these kind of issues and the IRS should focus on your application to make sure that you are not doing things that are prohibited for the type of organization that you are applying to be.
The only issue is that it doesn't appear that there was the same kind of focus on left leaning groups.
I don't care that they did it to the right, I'm happy that they were actually doing their job there. I'm ticked off that they didn't do their job when it comes to left leaning organizations.
d-usa wrote: I don't have any problem with what they did to the Tea Party applicants.
If you are applying for a tax status that prohibits focusing on political issues, while putting a big politically charged name on your application, then you should expect these kind of issues and the IRS should focus on your application to make sure that you are not doing things that are prohibited for the type of organization that you are applying to be.
The only issue is that it doesn't appear that there was the same kind of focus on left leaning groups.
I don't care that they did it to the right, I'm happy that they were actually doing their job there. I'm ticked off that they didn't do their job when it comes to left leaning organizations.
To this degree bro?
IRS should never be in the position to make these decisions in the first place... because, inevitably it'll morph into partisan politics.
d-usa wrote: It's not partisan because they investigated right wing groups, it is because they didn't investigate the left as well.
Right...
My point being is that the IRS shouldn't be in the position in the first place to investigate things like this as it potentially opens up for these types of abuses.
The IRS was never a popular department... now, it's gotta be as low as it's ever been.
I mean... there's no defense to this and there better be accountablity.
d-usa wrote: It's not partisan because they investigated right wing groups, it is because they didn't investigate the left as well.
And illegally leaking private documents from right leaning groups?
Illegally leaking details of donors from right leaning groups?
Violating their own policies when investigating applications from right leaning groups?
If my aunt had different plumbing she'd be my uncle. The fact is that they didn't investigate left leaning groups in the same manner, nor did they have criteria that would include let leaning groups. They acted in a manner that was clearly disadvantageous to people with particular political beliefs. People on Dakka will say that calling people "Tea baggers" and "terrorists" is political speech, but they'll gladly accept people being targeted for no more than their political views, not the evidence of wrong doing.
d-usa wrote: It's not partisan because they investigated right wing groups, it is because they didn't investigate the left as well.
Right...
My point being is that the IRS shouldn't be in the position in the first place to investigate things like this as it potentially opens up for these types of abuses.
That's just a pretty dumb statement.
The IRS has certain rules for certain organizations. So you don't think they should have the power or authority to investigate that people are following the rules?
d-usa wrote: It's not partisan because they investigated right wing groups, it is because they didn't investigate the left as well.
Right...
My point being is that the IRS shouldn't be in the position in the first place to investigate things like this as it potentially opens up for these types of abuses.
That's just a pretty dumb statement.
The IRS has certain rules for certain organizations. So you don't think they should have the power or authority to investigate that people are following the rules?
Disagree...
IRS should be enforcing clear cut rules and regulation.
When you get a section in the 501(c)(4) that states:
...social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.
What.The.feth... does that really mean? It's ambiguous as all hell.
That's what I'm talking about... the IRS is left to interpret that to their own devices and it's dangerous.
Also, why is Obama’s own personal political water-carrying outfit, Organizing for Action, also seeking 501(c)(4) status?
Not only are they a "tool" for Obama in pushing his policy platform, they're not exactly shy about their purpose:
Organizing for Action is a nonprofit organization established to support President Obama in achieving enactment of the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day 2012. OFA will advocate for these policies throughout the country and will mobilize citizens of all parties and diverse points to speak out for speedy passage and effective implementation of this program, including gun violence prevention, sensible environmental policies to address climate change and immigration reform. In addition, OFA will encourage the formation of chapters that will be dedicated at the grassroots level to this program, but also committed to identifying and working progressive change on a range of issues at the state and local level. In carrying its work, OFA will operate as a “social welfare” organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.
They operate Obama's twitter feed...
They are a group that is working openly for the president, under his aegis, is by definition of a 501(c)(4) abuse.
The IRS ought to refuse them the 501(c)(4) designation... Right?
The problem is not that they were picking on Republicans/Tea Party Groups.
The problem is that they are not doing their job enforcing against liberal groups.
So you think it's within the IRS's purview to leak documents of Conservative sites to their ideological opponents? You okay with that?
Are you okay with the following questions?
"Are you on Facebook or other social networking sites? If yes, provide copies of these pages."
"Provide details regarding all training you have provided or will provide. Indicate who has received or will received the training and submit copies of the training material."
"Please provide copies of all your current web pages, including your blog posts. Please provide copies of all of your newsletters, bulletins, flyers, newsletters or any other media or literature you have disseminated to your members or others. Please provide copies of stories and articles that have been published about you."
"Please provide the following information for your board of directors and officers:
a. Provide all copies of your corporate minutes from inception to the present
b. Provide the titles, duties, work hours and compensation amounts of your board members, officers and employees. If they only work for a certain time yearly, bi-yearly or quad-yearly, please provide the periods they had (have) worked and will work. Please identify your volunteers
c. If you have a board member or officer who has run or will run for a public office in the near future, please describe fully. If none, please confirm by answering "none" to this question."
"Fully describe your youth outreach program with the local school."
[whembly: WTF?]
"Submit the following information relating to your past and present directors, officers and key employees:
a. Provide a resume for each
b. Indicate the number of hours per month each individual has provided or is providing services to you
c. Provide a description of all the services each individual provides or has provided to you
d. Indicate the total compensation provided to each individual
e. Describe how each compensation package was determined
f. Indicate if any of your current and former officers, directors and key employees are related to each other (include family and business relationships) and describe the nature of the relationship."
And plenty other really onerous questions...
Let say, had the IRS only did this on liberal lean groups, I'd be just as pissed off. These actions are simply wrong.
All those really horrible things they are asking for?
That's how you find out what their primary purpose is.
You know, that difficult quesition of "not primarily in politics"? If all your Facebook posts, blog posts, news letters, are political campaigns, then it makes it pretty easy to figure it out.
The only two screwed up things coming forth from this are the leaks, and the fact that they didn't investigate liberals.
d-usa wrote: All those really horrible things they are asking for?
That's how you find out what their primary purpose is.
You know, that difficult quesition of "not primarily in politics"? If all your Facebook posts, blog posts, news letters, are political campaigns, then it makes it pretty easy to figure it out.
I was just pointing out that it shouldn't be their role.
The IRS is supposed to be a independent body.
The only two screwed up things coming forth from this are the leaks, and the fact that they didn't investigate liberals.
There's more dude...
I'm as "pro-gay marriage" as you can be... but the IRS leaked the donor list of The National Organization for Marriage to their political opponents, the pro-gay-marriage Human Rights Campaign. The documents had an internal IRS stamp on them. The list of names was then published on a number of liberal websites and the NOW’s donors were harassed.
The IRS demanded that all members of the Coalition for Life of Iowa swear under penalty of perjury that they wouldn’t pray, picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood. They were also asked to provide details of their prayer meetings. I mean... WTF?
Keep in mind these...
The wildly partisan left-wing groups that the IRS has certified as tax-exempt:
-ACORN
-Occupy Wallstreet
-Media Matters for America
-The Center for American Progress, an auxiliary of the Democratic National Committee funded by George Soros and staffed by former Clinton and Obama aides to promote the Democratic agenda...
-The Tides Foundation
dogma wrote: Again, is there evidence of this happening which extends beyond political nicety and posturing?
You mean other than ignoring the IRS admitting that they embarked on this behaviour? And their apologies? And the resignations? And the firing? And people refusing to answer Congress? And the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's comments? And that Obama said that what the IRS did was "inexcusable"
d-usa wrote: It's not partisan because they investigated right wing groups, it is because they didn't investigate the left as well.
Right...
My point being is that the IRS shouldn't be in the position in the first place to investigate things like this as it potentially opens up for these types of abuses.
That's just a pretty dumb statement.
The IRS has certain rules for certain organizations. So you don't think they should have the power or authority to investigate that people are following the rules?
No. They only have the power to investgiate what is within the code, not make blatant gak up. They did that on multiple cases.
Everyone in every department even remotely involved should be fired.
I'm as "pro-gay marriage" as you can be... but the IRS leaked the donor list of The National Organization for Marriage to their political opponents, the pro-gay-marriage Human Rights Campaign. The documents had an internal IRS stamp on them. The list of names was then published on a number of liberal websites and the NOW’s donors were harassed.
Transcripts of the interviews, viewed Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal, appear to contradict earlier statements by top IRS officials, who have blamed lower-level workers in Cincinnati.
Elizabeth Hofacre said her office in Cincinnati sought help from IRS officials in the Washington unit that oversees tax-exempt organizations after she started getting the tea-party cases in April 2010. Ms. Hofacre said Carter Hull, an IRS lawyer in Washington, closely oversaw her work and suggested some of the questions asked applicants.
“I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull’s influence or input,” she said, according to the transcripts.
You're right. thats not relevant -again.
The issue is whether the IRS followed appropriate administrative law in how it pursued these audits, whether those audits were in line with appropriate standards, code, and the law, and whether the triggering of those audits was done with intent to target a specific group.
Frazzled wrote: You're right. thats not relevant -again.
The issue is whether the IRS followed appropriate administrative law in how it pursued these audits...
I was unclear. I'm saying that, given the administrative law governing the IRS, it does not appear to have done anything wrong by using political terms included in a filing for NPO status as grounds for further review.
...and whether the triggering of those audits was done with intent to target a specific group.
This is the meat of the issue, I think. But it also isn't a thing anyone has seriously addressed, because the initial apology immediately colored the matter.
Transcripts of the interviews, viewed Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal, appear to contradict earlier statements by top IRS officials, who have blamed lower-level workers in Cincinnati.
Elizabeth Hofacre said her office in Cincinnati sought help from IRS officials in the Washington unit that oversees tax-exempt organizations after she started getting the tea-party cases in April 2010. Ms. Hofacre said Carter Hull, an IRS lawyer in Washington, closely oversaw her work and suggested some of the questions asked applicants.
“I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull’s influence or input,” she said, according to the transcripts.
So after they started targeting right leaning groups for further scrutiny they involved IRS lawyers, who " closely oversaw" the work done and may have helped draft the questions that the The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said was outside the scope of their powers. Interesting, the few-rogue-low-level-employees excuse is looking slightly more threadbare.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Interesting, the few-rogue-low-level-employees excuse is looking slightly more threadbare.
When was it claimed that they were "rogue"?
When the news broke maybe?
Acting commissioner Steven Miller called the employees "rogue" and said they were responsible for "overly aggressive" handling of the requests over the past two years
Right at the beginning... when Loris Lerner apologied
No, that's wrong. Lois Lerner's "apology" was made several days before the use of the word "rogue".
At any rate, the argument still seems to be "I don't know anything about the 501(c) section of the tax code!" with a dash of "Lol, Democrats are evil!"
Right at the beginning... when Loris Lerner apologied
No, that's wrong. Lois Lerner's "apology" was made several days before the use of the word "rogue".
At any rate, the argument still seems to be "I don't know anything about the 501(c) section of the tax code!" with a dash of "Lol, Democrats are evil!"
Well at the time of the apology, there were blaming low level guys working outside of the pervue of higher level employees. The actual term "rogue" may not have been used for a few days, but that is what they were building to. Dance around it however you want though.
Well at the time of the apology, there were blaming low level guys working outside of the pervue of higher level employees. The actual term "rogue" may not have been used for a few days, but that is what they were building to. Dance around it however you want though.
There's actually a fairly significant difference between claiming that "lower level*" officials initiated a particular practice, and that they had gone "rogue". In the first instance you're arguing, minimally, that higher level* officials were not involved, and that lower level officials enacted a procedure that was not necessarily outside the purview of their authority. In the second instance you are explicitly claiming that they acted against the orders of higher level officials. It is the difference between acting within the scope of your orders, and deliberately flaunting them.
I also think you're attributing too much coordination of message to an agency that is not accustomed to making public statements. Notably, the initial apology should never have happened. The IRS should simply have claimed it acted within the scope of the laws it enforces.
*Deliberately vague, because in situations like these it is necessary to be as such.
Well, I would call a low level employee doing something without the supervision of a higher level employee that is also ostensibly something they would not approve of to be well within the definition of "rogue".
Grey Templar wrote: Well, I would call a low level employee doing something without the supervision of a higher level employee that is also ostensibly something they would not approve of to be well within the definition of "rogue".
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two Internal Revenue Service agents working in the agency's Cincinnati office say higher-ups in Washington directed the targeting of conservative political groups when they applied for tax-exempt status, a contention that directly contradicts claims made by the agency since the scandal erupted last month.
The Cincinnati agents didn't provide proof that senior IRS officials in Washington ordered the targeting. But one of the agents said her work processing the applications was closely supervised by a Washington lawyer in the IRS division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, according to a transcript of her interview with congressional investigators.
Her interview suggests a long trail of emails that could support her claim.
The revelation could prove to be significant if investigators are able to show that Washington officials were involved in singling out tea party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny. IRS officials have said repeatedly that the targeting was initiated by front-line agents in the Cincinnati office and was stopped once senior officials in Washington found out.
A yearlong audit by the agency's inspector general found no evidence that Washington officials ordered or authorized the targeting. However, the inspector general blamed ineffective management by senior IRS officials for allowing the targeting to continue for nearly two years during the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Since the revelations were made public last month, much of the agency's top leadership has been replaced. President Barack Obama forced acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller to resign, replacing him with Danny Werfel, a former White House budget official who is conducting a review of the agency's operations.
Three congressional committees and the Justice Department are also investigating. Investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee have interviewed at least four IRS workers as part of their probe.
The Associated Press viewed transcripts of interviews with two IRS agents working in the Cincinnati office.
Gary Muthert, an IRS agent there, said his local supervisor told him in March 2010 to check the applications for tax-exempt status to see how many were from groups with "tea party" in their names. The supervisor's name was blacked out in the transcript.
"He told me that Washington, D.C., wanted some cases," Muthert said of his supervisor.
Muthert said he came up with fewer than 10 applications. But after checking some of the group's websites, he noticed similar groups with "patriots' or "9-12 project" in their names, so he started looking for applications that mentioned those terms too.
Over a two-month period, Muthert said he found about 40 applications that mentioned tea party, patriots or 9-12 project — the latter being groups which aspire to reinstill a post-9/11 spirit of unity in the country.
"I used 'patriots' because some of the tea partiers wouldn't, they would shorten their name to TP Patriots," Muthert said. "I thought, OK, I will use 'patriot.'"
Muthert said his supervisor told him that someone in Washington wanted to see seven of the applications, so Muthert prepared the files.
Whom did you send them to? An investigator asked.
"I don't know," Muthert answered.
Muthert did not respond to requests by the AP for comment.
The IRS was screening the groups' applications because agents were trying to determine their level of political activity. IRS regulations say tax-exempt social welfare organizations may engage in some political activity but the activity may not be their primary mission. It is up to the IRS to make that determination.
Elizabeth Hofacre, also an agent in the Cincinnati office, told investigators she was in charge of processing applications from tea party groups — once they were selected by other agents — from April 2010 to October 2010. Hofacre said her supervisor in Cincinnati, whose name was blacked out in the transcript, told her to handle the applications.
But, she said, an IRS lawyer in Washington, Carter Hull, micromanaged her work and ultimately delayed the processing of applications by tea party groups.
Hull is a lawyer in the division that handles applications for tax-exempt status. But, Hofacre said, his interest in the cases was highly unusual.
"It was demeaning," she said. "One of the criteria is to work independently and do research and make decisions based on your experience and education, whereas on this case, I had no autonomy at all through the process."
Hofacre said Hull signed off on letters she sent to the groups asking them for additional information and then reviewed their responses. Hofacre complained that Hull was slow to sign off on the letters.
"All I remember saying and thinking is, 'This is ridiculous.' Because at the same time, you are getting calls from irate taxpayers. And I see their point," Hofacre said.
Hofacre said she became so frustrated with the delays that she applied for a different job within the agency and transferred in October 2010.
Neither Hofacre nor Hull responded to requests for comment.
A yearlong audit by the agency's inspector general found no evidence that Washington officials ordered or authorized the targeting. However, the inspector general blamed ineffective management by senior IRS officials for allowing the targeting to continue for nearly two years during the 2010 and 2012 elections.
A yearlong audit by the agency's inspector general found no evidence that Washington officials ordered or authorized the targeting. However, the inspector general blamed ineffective management by senior IRS officials for allowing the targeting to continue for nearly two years during the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Cincinnati IRS staffer: D.C. showed interest in Tea Party cases
An IRS staffer in Cincinnati told congressional investigators that a Washington official was the driving force behind the targeting of Tea Party organizations in 2010, and showed unprecedented interest in those groups’ tax-exempt applications.
Elizabeth Hofacre, the Cincinnati staffer, said that she started receiving applications from Tea Party groups to sift through in April, 2010. Hofacre’s handling of those cases, she said, was highly influenced by Carter Hull, an IRS lawyer in Washington.
Hofacre said that she integrated questions from Hull into her follow-ups with Tea Party groups, and that Hull had to approve the letters seeking more information that she sent out to those organizations. That process, she said, was both unusual and “demeaning.”
“One of the criteria is to work independently and do research and make decisions based on your experience and education,” Hofacre said, according to transcripts reviewed by The Hill. “Whereas in this case, I had no autonomy at all through the process.”
“I thought it was over the top,” she added, in interviews held by investigators in both parties from the House Oversight and Ways and Means committees. “I am not sure where it came from, but it was a bit unusual.”
Hofacre, who oversaw Tea Party applications from April, 2010, to October, 2010, said Hull eventually became slow to endorse her letters. She eventually took another position within the IRS that year, after dealing with what she called “irate” applicants.
“And I see their point,” Hofacre said. “Even if a decision isn’t favorable, they deserve some kind of treatment and they deserve, you know, timeliness.”
The investigators’ interviews with Hofacre and another Cincinnati staffer, Gary Muthert, cast some doubt on statements from the former acting IRS commissioner, Steven Miller, and other agency officials that the targeting of Tea Party groups was limited to Cincinnati.
They also show the tension that developed between officials in Cincinnati and Washington, especially after Lois Lerner – the D.C.-based director at the center of the targeting storm – placed the responsibility for the singling out on the Ohio office. Lerner was the IRS official who first disclosed, and apologized for, the targeting.
Hofacre told investigators that officials trying to blame the Cincinnati office were misleading the public on purpose.
“I was appalled and I was infuriated,” Hofacre said. "Because they are inaccurate, and everybody that has been making those statements should know they are inaccurate.”
Still, the interviews also contain few answers on who exactly ordered the targeting, and contain no suggestions that White House or Treasury officials – or even the top IRS brass – knew about the extra scrutiny.
Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration found that the IRS inappropriately screened for Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status, asked them inappropriate questions and kept some waiting for years for a verdict.
In addition to the congressional inquest, the tax administration inspector general is further investigating the targeting, as is the Justice Department.
The controversy swirling around the IRS has also only grown since the inspector general's report came out almost a month ago, with a separate audit finding that the agency spent more than $4 million on a single conference in 2010.
Muthert told investigators that he started collecting Tea Party applications in March, 2010, and eventually sent seven cases to Washington after hearing officials there had shown an interest in those applications.
The number of cases he found ultimately grew from less than 10 to roughly 40, after broadening his search beyond “Tea Party” to include “patriots” and “9/12.”
Hofacre, the Cincinnati staffer charged with dealing with the Tea Party applications after they were found, said the 20 cases she was originally given mushroomed into 40 to 60.
Hofacre's Ohio-based supervisor directed her to deal with the Tea Party cases. But it was unusual, Hofacre told investigators, for one agent to have such exclusive oversight of applications from one type of organization.
The Cincinnati staffer also said that the letters she sent to follow up with Tea Party groups asked for information about the groups’ rallies, emails and web sites.
Those questions, developed after her consultations with Hull, were pretty standard, Hofacre said.
But Hofacre added that she found one request from Washington – that they press groups for information on contracts they might have in the future – to be odd.
She also said that some requests she suggested came after she stopped working Tea Party cases in 2010 – like for donor lists – were “appalling."
Also this...the “low-level employee” defense is crumbling in both fact and perception. Gallup’s latest survey shows that 59% of all adults believe that high-ranking IRS officials knew full well about the targeting of conservatives, and even a plurality of Democrats do as well...
Nearly six in 10 Americans believe that high-ranking IRS officials in Washington were aware the IRS had a practice of targeting conservative political groups for greater scrutiny in recent years. One-quarter think knowledge of this was mainly limited to the agency’s office in Cincinnati where the mishandled applications for tax-exempt status were processed.
cliff notes: IRS illegally leaked the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) donor lists to its political opponent, Human Rights Watch.
This is stupendously illegal.
NOM wants to know which IRS agent did this.
The IRS is claiming they can't tell NOM who illegally leaked confidential information, because the law forbidding the disclosure of confidential information also protects the confidentiality of those who illegally leak such information!
o.O
The IRS Can't Plead Incompetence
If the agency didn't know what it was doing, it wouldn't have done it so well.
Quickly: Everyone agrees the Internal Revenue Service is, under current governmental structures, the proper agency to determine the legitimacy of applications for tax-exempt status. Everyone agrees the IRS has the duty to scrutinize each request, making sure that the organization meets relevant criteria. Everyone agrees groups requesting tax-exempt status must back up their requests with truthful answers and honest information.
Some ask, "Don't conservatives know they have to be questioned like anyone else?" Yes, they do. Their grievance centers on the fact they have not been. They were targeted, and their rights violated.
The most compelling evidence of that is what happened to the National Organization for Marriage. Its chairman, John Eastman, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, and the tale he told was different from the now-familiar stories of harassment and abuse.
In March 2012, the organization, which argues the case for traditional marriage, found out its confidential tax information had been obtained by the Human Rights Campaign, one of its primary opponents in the marriage debate. The HRC put the leaked information on its website—including the names of NOM donors. The NOM not only has the legal right to keep its donors' names private, it has to, because when contributors' names have been revealed in the past they have been harassed, boycotted and threatened. This is a free speech right, one the Supreme Court upheld in 1958 after the state of Alabama tried to compel the NAACP to surrender its membership list.
The NOM did a computer forensic investigation and determined that its leaked IRS information had come from within the IRS itself. If it was leaked by a worker or workers within the IRS it would be a federal crime, with penalties including up to five years in prison.
In April 2012, the NOM asked the IRS for an investigation. The inspector general's office gave them a complaint number. Soon they were in touch. Even though the leaked document bore internal IRS markings, the inspector general decided that maybe the document came from within the NOM. The NOM demonstrated that was not true.
For the next 14 months they heard nothing about an investigation. By August 2012, the NOM was filing Freedom of Information Act requests trying to find out if there was one. The IRS stonewalled. Their "latest nonresponse response," said Mr. Eastman, claimed that the law prohibiting the disclosure of confidential tax returns also prevents disclosure of information about who disclosed them. Mr. Eastman called this "Orwellian." He said that what the NOM experienced "suggests that problems at the IRS are potentially far more serious" than the targeting of conservative organizations for scrutiny.
In hearings Thursday, Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat who disagrees with the basic stand of the NOM, said that what had happened to the organization was nonetheless particularly offensive to him. The new IRS director agreed he would look into it.
Almost a month after the IRS story broke—a month after the high-profile scandal started to unravel after a botched spin operation that was meant to make the story go away—no one has been able to produce a liberal or progressive group that was targeted and thwarted by the agency's tax-exemption arm in the years leading up to the 2012 election. The House Ways and Means Committee this week held hearings featuring witnesses from six of the targeted groups. Before the hearing, Republicans invited Democrats to include witnesses from the other side. The Democrats didn't produce one. The McClatchy news service also looked for nonconservative targets. "Virtually no organizations perceived to be liberal or nonpartisan have come forward to say they were unfairly targeted," it reported. Liberal groups told McClatchy "they thought the scrutiny they got was fair."
Some sophisticated Democrats who've worked in executive agencies have suggested to me that the story is simpler than it seems—that the targeting wasn't a political operation, an expression of political preference enforced by an increasingly partisan agency, its union and assorted higher-ups. A former senior White House official, and a very bright man, said this week he didn't believe it was mischief but incompetence. But why did all the incompetent workers misunderstand their jobs and their mission in exactly the same way? Wouldn't general incompetence suggest both liberal and conservative groups would be abused more or less equally, or in proportion to the number of their applications? Wouldn't a lot of left-wing groups have been caught in the incompetence net? Wouldn't we now be hearing honest and aggrieved statements from indignant progressives who expected better from their government?
Some person or persons made the decision to target, harass, delay and abuse. Some person or persons communicated the decision. Some persons executed them. Maybe we're getting closer. John McKinnon and Dionne Searcey of The Wall Street Journal reported this week that IRS employees in the Cincinnati office—those are the ones that tax-exempt unit chief Lois Lerner accused of going rogue and attempted to throw under the bus—have told congressional investigators that agency officials in Washington helped direct the probe of the tea-party groups. Mr. McKinnon and Ms. Searcey reported that one of the workers told investigators an IRS lawyer in Washington, Carter Hull, "closely oversaw her work and suggested some of the questions asked applicants."
"The IRS didn't respond to a request for comment," they wrote. There really is an air about the IRS that they think they are The Untouchables.
Some have said the IRS didn't have enough money to do its job well. But a lack of money isn't what makes you target political groups—a directive is what makes you do that. In any case, this week's bombshell makes it clear the IRS, from 2010 to 2012, the years of prime targeting, did have money to improve its processes. During those years they spent $49 million on themselves—on conferences and gatherings, on $1,500 hotel rooms and self-esteem presentations. "Maliciously self-indulgent," said Chairman Darrell Issa at Thursday's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearings.
What a culture of entitlement, and what confusion it reveals about what motivates people. You want to increase the morale, cohesion and self-respect of IRS workers? Allow them to work in an agency that is famous for integrity, fairness and professionalism. That gives people spirit and guts, not "Star Trek" parody videos.
Finally, this week Russell George, the inspector general whose audit confirmed the targeting of conservative groups, mentioned, as we all do these days, Richard Nixon's attempt to use the agency to target his enemies. But part of that Watergate story is that Nixon failed. Last week David Dykes of the Greenville (S.C.) News wrote of meeting with 93-year-old Johnnie Mac Walters, head of the IRS almost 40 years ago, in the Nixon era. Mr. Dykes quoted Tim Naftali, former director of the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, who told him the IRS wouldn't do what Nixon asked: "It didn't happen, not because the White House didn't want it to happen, but because people like Johnnie Walters said 'no.' "
That was the IRS doing its job—attempting to be above politics, refusing to act as the muscle for a political agenda.
cliff notes: IRS illegally leaked the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) donor lists to its political opponent, Human Rights Watch.
This is stupendously illegal.
NOM wants to know which IRS agent did this.
The IRS is claiming they can't tell NOM who illegally leaked confidential information, because the law forbidding the disclosure of confidential information also protects the confidentiality of those who illegally leak such information!
o.O
I can see their point that the IRS cannot name who leaked it to the NOM, however if law enforcement start to investigate matters then I' not sure just how long that defense would last. Maybe it's time that subpoenas were issued and people questioned under oath as part of a criminal investigation.
Frazzled wrote: Looks like the EPA gave out the names of 80,000 farmers to left wing causes.
A bipartisan group of 24 senators has sent a letter to the EPA, demanding that the agency explain why it leaked the names and personal information of more than 80,000 farmers and ranchers to left-wing organizations. In April, the EPA admitted the information had leaked in a story broken by FoxNews.com.
According to the report, the information on livestock and produce farmers was sought through a Freedom of Information Act request by the groups Earth Justice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pew Charitable Trust. They were given information on roughly 80,000 farmers and ranchers, though the EPA later said it made a mistake by releasing the information.
One Nebraska rancher said his address was published, expressing concern that environmental "extremists" - upset over possible water pollution by livestock producers - could target his farm.
Megyn Kelly took the latest scandal involving the Obama EPA with Michelle Malkin, who said it's no wonder these types of things keep happening.
In a ridiculous follow-up, the EPA then asked the left-wing groups to return the information that was mistakenly released. Pew Charitable Trust said they returned it, but it's unclear about the other two groups.
"Oopsy! How do these things just keep happening? The scandal never stops when the fish rots from the top. ... Whatever fishing expedition these left-wing groups were on - and we're talking about the most radical green groups that have a decades-long history of targeting their opponents, whether it's free-market environmentalists or these ranchers who are trying to make a living in America - there was something very smelly going on here," said Malkin.
To a reasonable observer it seems a little strange that "rogue" government employees could leak so much information to left leaning groups. What sort of culture and management allows these sorts of violations?
Grey Templar wrote: Well, I would call a low level employee doing something without the supervision of a higher level employee that is also ostensibly something they would not approve of to be well within the definition of "rogue".
The administration’s current fallback story that the IRS’s behavior was an outlier case of a few “low-level rogue” agents, and that D.C. had absolutely nothing to do with it... is disintegrating.
(sourced and quoted to make dogma happy) IRS supervisor in DCscrutinized tea party cases:
WASHINGTON (AP) — An Internal Revenue Service supervisor in Washington says she was personally involved in scrutinizing some of the earliest applications from tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status, including some requests that languished for more than a year without action.
Holly Paz, who until recently was a top deputy in the division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, told congressional investigators she reviewed 20 to 30 applications. Her assertion contradicts initial claims by the agency that a small group of agents working in an office in Cincinnati were solely responsible for mishandling the applications.
Paz, however, provided no evidence that senior IRS officials ordered agents to target conservative groups or that anyone in the Obama administration outside the IRS was involved.
Instead, Paz described an agency in which IRS supervisors in Washington worked closely with agents in the field but didn't fully understand what those agents were doing. Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling "tea party" cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active — conservative and liberal.
Paz said dozens of tea party applications sat untouched for more than a year while field agents waited for guidance from Washington on how to handle them. At the time, she said, Washington officials thought the agents in Cincinnati were processing the cases.
Paz was among the first IRS employees to be interviewed as part of a joint investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.
Congressional investigators have interviewed at least six IRS employees as part of their inquiry. The Associated Press has reviewed transcripts from three interviews — with Paz and with two agents, Gary Muthert and Elizabeth Hofacre, from the Cincinnati office.
The IRS declined comment for this story.
A yearlong audit by the agency's inspector general found that IRS agents had improperly targeted conservative political groups for additional and sometimes onerous scrutiny when those groups applied for tax-exempt status.
The audit found no evidence that Washington officials ordered or authorized the targeting. But the IRS watchdog blamed ineffective management by senior IRS officials for allowing it to continue for nearly two years during the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Since the revelations became public last month, much of the agency's leadership has been replaced and the Justice Department has started a criminal investigation. Both Paz and her supervisor, Lois Lerner, who headed the division that handles applications for tax-exempt status, have been replaced.
Agency officials told congressional aides that Lerner was placed on administrative leave. They did not disclose the status Paz, other than to say she was replaced June 7.
Lerner is the IRS official who first disclosed the targeting at a legal conference May 10. That day, she told The AP: "It's the line people that did it without talking to managers. They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents."
On May 22 — the day after Paz was interviewed by investigators — Lerner refused to answer questions from lawmakers at a congressional hearing, citing her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself.
Paz told congressional investigators that an IRS agent in Cincinnati flagged the first tea party case in February 2010. The agent forwarded the application to a manager because it appeared to be politically sensitive, Paz said. The manager informed Paz, who said she had the application assigned to a legal expert in Washington.
At the time, Paz headed a technical unit in Washington that provided guidance to agents who screened applications for tax-exempt status. The agents worked primarily in Cincinnati. One of their tasks was to determine the applicant groups' level of political activity.
IRS regulations say tax-exempt social welfare organizations may engage in some political activity but their primary mission cannot be influencing the outcome of elections. It is up to the IRS to make that determination.
"It's very fact-and-circumstance intensive. So it's a difficult issue," Paz told investigators.
"Oftentimes what we will do, and what we did here, is we'll transfer it to (the technical unit), get someone who's well-versed on that area of the law working the case so they can see what the issues are," Paz said. "The goal with that is ultimately to develop some guidance or a tool that can be given to folks in (the Cincinnati office) to help them in working the cases themselves."
By the fall of 2010, the legal expert in Washington, Carter Hull, was working on about 40 applications, Paz said. A little more than half had "tea party" in the name, she said IRS agents in Cincinnati were singling out groups for extra scrutiny if their applications included the words "tea party," ''patriots" or "9-12 project," according to the inspector general's report. Paz said she didn't learn that agents were targeting groups based on those terms until June 2011, about the time Lerner first ordered agents to change the criteria.
Paz said an IRS supervisor in Cincinnati had commonly referred to the applications as "tea party" cases. But, Paz said, she thought that was simply shorthand for any application that included political activity.
"Since the first case that came up to Washington happened to have that name, it appeared to me that's why they were calling it that as a shorthand," Paz told congressional investigators.
Paz said she didn't think the agents in Cincinnati were politically motivated.
"My impression, based on, you know, this instance and other instances in the office is that because they are so apolitical, they are not as sensitive as we would like them to be as to how things might appear," Paz said.
"Many of these employees have been with the IRS for decades and were used to a world where how they talked about things internally was not something that would be public or that anyone would be interested in," Paz added. "So I don't think they thought much about how it would appear to others. They knew what they meant and that was sort of good enough for them."
For several months in 2010, Hull worked closely with Hofacre, the agent in Cincinnati, to review the tea party cases, Paz said. In Hofacre's interview, she complained that Hull micromanaged her work.
Hofacre left for a different IRS job in October 2010 and was replaced by an agent whose name was blacked out in the transcript. Paz said the new agent sat on the tea party applications for more than a year because he was waiting on guidance from Washington on how to proceed. Officials in Washington, however, thought the agents in Cincinnati were still processing the cases, she said.
As a result, many applications languished for more than a year, which, the inspector general said, hurt the groups' ability to raise money.
"I knew they were waiting for guidance," Paz said. "I did not know that they were not working the cases because what had been done previously was, they were working the cases in consultation with Washington. And I was under the impression that that was continuing."
Hull was to be interviewed by congressional investigators on Friday. Efforts to reach Hull and Paz for comment were unsuccessful.
In all, agents singled out 298 applications for additional scrutiny because the groups appeared to be involved in political activity, the inspector general's report said. But IRS agents in Cincinnati weren't given adequate training on how to handle the cases until May 2012, the report said.
Before the training, only six applications had been approved. Afterward, an additional 102 applications were approved by December 2012, the report said.
Of those 102 applications, 29 involved tea party, patriots, or 9-12 organizations, the report said. Many applications are still awaiting action. None has been rejected, according to the IRS.
Instead, Paz described an agency in which IRS supervisors in Washington worked closely with agents in the field but didn't fully understand what those agents were doing. Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling "tea party" cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active — conservative and liberal.
Yeah....because the phrase "Tea Party" is synonymous with liberal groups......
Instead, Paz described an agency in which IRS supervisors in Washington worked closely with agents in the field but didn't fully understand what those agents were doing. Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling "tea party" cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active — conservative and liberal.
Yeah....because the phrase "Tea Party" is synonymous with liberal groups......
tea parties for all, isn't that one of their platform policies? Give us your tired, your poor, your crumpetless
The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates adherence to the United States Constitution,[1][not in citation given] and reducing U.S. government spending and taxes,[2][3] and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.[2] The movement has been called partly conservative,[4] partly libertarian,[5] and partly populist.[6] The movement has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009
. . .
Aside from rallies, some groups affiliated with the Tea Party movement began to focus on getting out the vote and ground game efforts on behalf of candidates supportive of their agenda starting in the 2010 elections.
Various Tea Party groups have endorsed candidates in the elections. In the 2010 midterm elections, The New York Times identified 138 candidates for Congress with significant Tea Party support, and reported that all of them were running as Republicans—of whom 129 were running for the House and 9 for the Senate.[93] The Wall Street Journal–NBC News poll in mid October showed 35% of likely voters were Tea-party supporters, and they favored the Republicans by 84% to 10%.[94] The first Tea Party affiliated candidate to be elected into office is believed to be Dean Murray, a Long Island businessman, who won a special election for a New York State Assembly seat in February 2010.[95]
According to statistics on an NBC blog, overall, 32% of the candidates that were backed by the Tea Party or identified themselves as a Tea Party member won election. Tea Party supported candidates won 5 of 10 Senate races (50%) contested, and 40 of 130 House races (31%) contested.[96] In the primaries for Colorado, Nevada and Delaware the Tea-party backed Senate Republican nominees defeated "establishment" Republicans that had been expected to win their respective Senate races, but went on to lose in the general election to their Democrat opponents.[97]
Tea Party candidates were less successful in the 2012 election, winning four of 16 Senate races contested, and losing approximately 20% of the seats in the House that had been gained in 2010. Tea Party Caucus founder Michele Bachmann was re-elected to the House by a narrow margin
Twelve different groups within the IRS targeted conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt nonprofit status, according to the attorneys representing tea party plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the IRS.
The revelation disproves the suggestion by a top congressional Democrat that only one IRS group was responsible for scrutinizing tea party and conservative applications.
Group 7821, Group 7822, Group 7823, Group 7824, Group 7827, Group 7828, Group 7829, Group 7830, Group 7838, EOG-7887, and EOG-7888, and the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington, D.C. all targeted conservative groups between 2010 and 2012, according to documentation compiled by the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which has filed a class-action suit against the IRS.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigating the IRS targeting scandal, previously suggested that tea party applications were sent only to Group 7822 for scrutiny. Cummings released transcripts of an interview his staff conducted with John Shafer, an employee of the Cincinnati IRS office, who claimed that he sent tea party applications specifically to Group 7822.
“Based upon everything I’ve seen the case is solved,” Cummings said on CNN during a June 9 interview.
The ACLJ disagrees.
“[John] Shafer was just one individual describing his experience interacting with one group [Group 7822]. If he was only interacting with one group then his involvement in this process was minimal,” ACLJ senior counsel David French told The Daily Caller.
“Group 7822 was pinpointed because of the release from Rep. Cummings, which created the impression that there were one or two agents that referred to a single group,” French said. “In fact we are dealing with multiple IRS offices across the nation that were targeting conservative groups, and eleven different IRS groups beside Group 7822, including the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington. Each of these groups was working on tea party and conservative cases.”
“After Rep. Cummings’ statement, the media fixated on Group 7822 as the patient zero of the outbreak when the reality is it was many groups, so the IRS hierarchy is much more implicated,” French said.
Between 2010 and 2012, the IRS sent letters to tea party applicants across the country demanding more information before their tax-exempt applications could be approved. On the upper left-hand corner of these letters, the IRS identified the working group within the agency requesting the information. Twelve different groups appeared on these letters, according to French.
The El Monte, California IRS office, for instance, sent a letter requesting additional information to Oklahoma City Patriots in Action, dated February 9, 2012, which listed the IRS group EOG-7887 in the upper left-hand corner.
“We’re going to find out the differences between these IRS groups in litigation,” French said. “Which personnel were in each group? Was there overlap in personnel?”
It remains unclear whether these IRS groups existed prior to the targeting. It is also unclear whether these groups each had their own physical locations, according to French.
Despite claims by IRS officials that the targeting occurred only in the agency’s Cincinnati office, the ACLJ compiled letters proving that IRS offices in Washington, D.C. and the California cities of El Monte and Laguna Niguel also targeted conservatives. The Daily Caller has also reported that the agency’s Baltimore and Chicago offices engaged in the improper targeting.
Cincinnati-based IRS employee Elizabeth Hofacre told congressional investigators that Washington-based IRS lawyer Carter Hull oversaw her office’s targeting, and even instructed her on how to demand additional information from tea party groups. “I was essentially a front person, because I had no autonomy or no authority to act on [applications] without Carter Hull’s influence or input,” Hofacre said.
“We know that the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington, D.C. was involved, and that’s where Carter Hull and Lois Lerner were working. We have 14 letters directly from Lois Lerner,” French said. “When Lois Lerner said on May 10 that this was just a few agents in Cincinnati, we were literally holding in our hands 14 letters that she wrote to conservative groups.”
The IRS did not immediately return a request for comment.
Easy E wrote: The story line I've been hearing this afternoon/morning is that they were targeting all sorts of groups inappropriately and not just Conservatives.
Hmmm, will the Tea Partiers care so much now that the IRS investigations weren't witch hunts that they could try to tie to the President?
Come to think of it, we’ve kind of known since the beginning that liberal groups were also examined and rejected for non-profit status. Back when the scandal originally broke,Bloomberg reported that at least three liberal groups were scrutinized, and two of the groups were denied tax exempt status. Later, we discovered that out of 176 organizations that were granted tax exempt status in 2010, 122 were conservative and 48 were liberal/non-conservative. In other words, more than twice as many conservative groups were approved over liberal groups.
You're being spun, America. On the vital question of whether the Internal Revenue Service incompetently or corruptly targeted conservative groups, both the White House and GOP are rushing to judgment – and they want you to follow like lemmings.
Don't do it.
Nearly six weeks ago, President Obama responded to an inspector general's report detailing the targeting, which had been long denied by the IRS. "The misconduct that it uncovered is inexcusable. It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it," Obama said, vowing to "hold the responsible parties accountable."
The IG report was based on a cursory audit. It was not a full-fledged investigation. And yet Democrats disingenuously claimed that it exonerated the Obama administration and the president's re-election campaign from any involvement in IRS targeting.
To truly "hold the responsible parties accountable," Obama still needed a thorough and impartial inquiry led by investigators who would question witnesses under oath, and would subpoena the White House and his own re-election campaign for related emails and other documents.
He did not ask for that.
Smelling blood, the GOP-controlled House launched an investigation led by Rep. Darrell Issa of California. Never mistaken for an impartial investigator, Issa quickly declared that IRS targeting was "ordered from Washington" – a thinly veiled indictment of the White House. His evidence? A few cherry-picked interviews with IRS officials and an Orwellian subtext: "We're getting to proving it," Issa said. On June 3 I wrote of Issa: "Meet the best friend of a controversy-plagued Democratic White House: a demagogic Republican."
Meanwhile, Obama backed his strong words with middling action, transferring political ally Danny Werfel from the Office of Management and Budget to the IRS, where as acting commissioner Werfel would investigate his own administration.
Werfel may be a stand-up guy with a solid reputation in Washington. But the public doesn't know him. The public also doesn't trust the federal government. And the public doesn't like the IRS.
Why, after the agency's massive breach of trust, would Obama think a Werfel-led investigation will restore the public's faith?
Werfel announced Monday that instructions used by the IRS to look for applicants seeking tax-exempt status with "Tea Party" and "Patriots" in their title also included groups whose names included the word "Progressive" and "Occupy." Jonathon Weisman of The New York Times reported, "The documents appeared to back up contentions by IRS officials and some Democrats that the agency did not intend to single out conservative groups for special scrutiny."
The White House and its allies declared the scandal over. Said David Axelrod, one of Obama's longest-serving advisers, said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show: "I think the implication that this was some sort of scheme is falling apart."
Don't buy it. Like Issa and the GOP, Democrats are jumping to convenient conclusions based on incomplete evidence and no credible investigation.
There is a hard truth that partisans won't admit: Until more is known, we can't implicate or exonerate anybody.
If forced to guess, I would say that the IRS and its White House masters are guilty of gross incompetence, but not corruption. I based that only on my personal knowledge of – and respect for – Obama and his team. But I shouldn't have to guess. More importantly, most Americans don't have a professional relationship with Obama and his team. Many don't respect or trust government. They deserve what Obama promised nearly six weeks ago – accountability. They need a thorough investigation conducted by somebody other than demagogic Republicans and White House allies.
Somebody like …. a special prosecutor. Those words are hard for me to type two decades after an innocent land deal I covered in Arkansas turned into the runaway Whitewater investigation.
But Obama was right to be angry about the IG audit. He knows how important it is for Americans to trust the IRS, an agency that keeps our secrets, that collects taxes to run government, and that will soon implement Obama's own health care program.
What the IRS did, Obama said less than six weeks ago, was "inexcusable." That's a good word to describe what Republicans and Democrats in Washington are doing now -- cherry-picking evidence from partisan and cursory inquiries, treating Americans like lemmings and the truth like a leper.
Easy E wrote: The story line I've been hearing this afternoon/morning is that they were targeting all sorts of groups inappropriately and not just Conservatives.
Hmmm, will the Tea Partiers care so much now that the IRS investigations weren't witch hunts that they could try to tie to the President?
If that's true, then why did the IRS apologize?
Because, just like any company, athlete or government agency, they told you what you wanted to hear because it was expected of them. It wasn't a confession, and I said as much in the first few pages. An apology is simply for the purposes of placating those who are more interested in their own emotional reaction to a message than to the actual content of the message.
You've really got to just let that apology go and stop considering damning evidence, because it isn't. It's like a concilliatory "I'm sorry" spoken at a funeral; it's not a confession.
Come to think of it, we’ve kind of known since the beginning that liberal groups were also examined and rejected for non-profit status. Back when the scandal originally broke,Bloomberg reported that at least three liberal groups were scrutinized, and two of the groups were denied tax exempt status. Later, we discovered that out of 176 organizations that were granted tax exempt status in 2010, 122 were conservative and 48 were liberal/non-conservative. In other words, more than twice as many conservative groups were approved over liberal groups.
Camp said in a Monday statement that the IRS review did not provide much clarity on key questions like who started the targeting, and why it continued for so long.
“This culture of political discrimination and intimidation goes far beyond basic management failure, and personnel changes alone won’t fix a broken IRS,” Camp said.
Camp’s office issued another release acknowledging that BOLOs had screened for liberal groups. But the Michigan Republican, who has stressed in recent weeks that the targeting went far beyond what was in the May audit, also said there was no evidence that groups on the left had donors threatened, confidential information leaked or faced the sort of inappropriate questions that conservative groups faced.
“It is one thing to flag a group,” a spokeswoman for Camp said. “It is quite another to repeatedly target and abuse conservative groups.”
The House Oversight chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), added that it was “premature” for Werfel to say that there was “no evidence that anyone at IRS intentionally did anything wrong.”
Easy E wrote: The story line I've been hearing this afternoon/morning is that they were targeting all sorts of groups inappropriately and not just Conservatives.
Hmmm, will the Tea Partiers care so much now that the IRS investigations weren't witch hunts that they could try to tie to the President?
If that's true, then why did the IRS apologize?
Because, just like any company, athlete or government agency, they told you what you wanted to hear because it was expected of them. It wasn't a confession, and I said as much in the first few pages. An apology is simply for the purposes of placating those who are more interested in their own emotional reaction to a message than to the actual content of the message.
You've really got to just let that apology go and stop considering damning evidence, because it isn't. It's like a concilliatory "I'm sorry" spoken at a funeral; it's not a confession.
Remind me not to vote or work for you then. I don't want to be told something because it's something I wanted to hear.
First you didn't hear anything about this targeting of liberal groups, then you post what is literally the first rebuttal of the story that I come across when typing "IRS targeting liberal groups" into Google.
d-usa wrote: First you didn't hear anything about this targeting of liberal groups, then you post what is literally the first rebuttal of the story that I come across when typing "IRS targeting liberal groups" into Google.
The more accurate reports merely mention that a certain type of “progressive” group applications was mentioned on IRS “be on the lookout lists.”
But if progressive advocacy groups were given the third degree, then you might ask why none of them have come forward. Possibly because the documents in question do not actually say they were systematically targeted. And in fact, probably because the kinds of groups discussed in these documents are of a totally different nature than the Tea Party groups targeted in the recent scandal.
The 14 new IRS documents do mention the term “progressive,” but only in describing applications for the coveted 501 c(3) status, which confers tax deductibility on donations. The documents where the term “progressive” appears (or wasn’t redacted) instruct agents that c(3) status is not appropriate for groups that conduct overtly political activity. Unlike 501 c(4) groups — nearly all of those involved in the Tea Party targeting scandal — 501 c(3) groups are not permitted to engage in political advocacy at all.
The new IRS documents are watch lists, and they more or less all resemble the one at this link, though there are important changes over time. For example, by February 2012, the “Tea Party” entry that appears in earlier memos is replaced with more politically neutral phrasing about “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement.”
‘Progressive’
Most of the heavily-redacted documents in question include the label “progressive” in what appears to be a troubleshooting guide for typical cases that IRS employees have recently come across. A few of the other legible examples alongside the entry for “progressive” include unusual cases involving suspicious corporate structures (including churches), cases in which exemption letters have been falsified, certain entities in Puerto Rico (whose precise nature is redacted), pain management clinics, and 176 cases in which filers used the same address to conduct what might have been a tax scam. For some of these types of cases, a specific group or agent is identified as handling them.
In each list where it appears, the entry marked “progressive” is less specific, simply containing a warning against granting 501 c(3) status to groups that appear to be too political, but it includes no further instructions on what to do with such cases. The descriptor in the “progressive” entry reads:
Common thread is the word ‘progressive.’ Activities appear to lean toward a new political party. Activities are partisan and appear as anti-Republican. You see references to ‘blue’ as being ‘progressive.
Although it appears in the incorrect column of the document, this appears to be the “Tax Law issue” associated with “progressive” groups (brackets mine):
Applicants submit form 1023 [the IRS form for obtaining 501 c(3) status]. Their ‘progressive’ activities appear to show that (c)(3) may not be appropriate.
TEA PARTY
The “Tea Party” entry fell under a separate category in the earlier memos, marked “emerging issues,” and the targeting scandal pertains mostly to c(4) groups, although c(3) groups are mentioned in these watch lists as well.
The instructions that appear in earlier versions of the watch list documents are much more specific for “Tea Party” groups than those for “progressive” groups. They dictate special scrutiny of both 501 c(3) and 501 (c)(4) Tea Party applicants.
The descriptor in the earlier versions reads as follows: “These case [sic] involve various local organizations in the Tea Party movement are applying [sic] for exemption under 501 c(3) or 501 c(4),” one version states, with halting grammar.
Under the heading “disposition,” the document states:
Any cases should be sent to group 7822. Liz Hofacre is coordinating. These cases are currently being coordinated with EOT.
In later versions, even with the more neutral language, the “group 7822″ is also referred to as the destination for such cases.
The documents do nothing to contradict the notion that Tea Party groups applying for 501 c(4) were singled out and treated in a way similar “progressive” groups were not. Yet they also do not demonstrate that Tea Party groups are the only ones that got the shaft.
If they weren’t, there should be a way to find out: Simply identify dozens or hundreds of “progressive” groups out there got treatment similar to the hundreds of “Tea Party” groups that waited months or years for 501 c(4) status, or received bizarre inquiries about their religious or political habits or were subjected to strange requests (e.g., a promise that certain people involved would never run for office) in exchange for their legal status.
If such progressive groups exist and were systematically targeted, then we haven’t heard anything about them yet or seen their kind mentioned on these watch lists.
UPDATE: Yes, I’m aware that there were three liberal groups that got the third degree — one of which admittedly “works only with women who are in the Democratic Party” (kind of a no-brainer) and another of which had a name (“Clean Elections Texas”) that might have resembled that of a conservative group combating voter fraud. But one swallow does not a spring make. Given the systematic nature of the Tea Party targeting, it’s going to have to be a little more serious and widespread than that to debunk what the bureaucrats clearly and admittedly did to Tea Party groups.
Non-conservative advocacy groups given special scrutiny by the IRS in or after 2010 included the Coffee Party USA, the alternative to the Tea Party movement that got a bunch of press in 2010, as well as such explicitly progressive groups as the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; Rebuild the Dream, founded by former Obama administration official Van Jones; and Progressives United Inc., which was founded by former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold.
Also included in the special scrutiny were Progress Texas and Progress Missouri Inc.; Tie the Knot, which sells bow ties to raise money to promote same-sex marriage; and ProgressNow, which describes itself as "a year-round never-ending progressive campaign."
The targeting also rolled up centrist groups, such as the Across the Aisle Foundation -- the educational and cultural arm of No Labels, which worked to build momentum for an independent ticket for the presidency -- and politically neutral ones, such as The East Hampton Group for Good Government Inc., formed to encourage better leadership and management of the New York vacation town, and the League of Women Voters of Hawaii.
Non-conservative advocacy groups given special scrutiny by the IRS in or after 2010 included the Coffee Party USA, the alternative to the Tea Party movement that got a bunch of press in 2010, as well as such explicitly progressive groups as the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; Rebuild the Dream, founded by former Obama administration official Van Jones; and Progressives United Inc., which was founded by former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold.
Also included in the special scrutiny were Progress Texas and Progress Missouri Inc.; Tie the Knot, which sells bow ties to raise money to promote same-sex marriage; and ProgressNow, which describes itself as "a year-round never-ending progressive campaign."
The targeting also rolled up centrist groups, such as the Across the Aisle Foundation -- the educational and cultural arm of No Labels, which worked to build momentum for an independent ticket for the presidency -- and politically neutral ones, such as The East Hampton Group for Good Government Inc., formed to encourage better leadership and management of the New York vacation town, and the League of Women Voters of Hawaii.
Dude stop. You can't just go posting things because they're true.
d-usa wrote: First you didn't hear anything about this targeting of liberal groups, then you post what is literally the first rebuttal of the story that I come across when typing "IRS targeting liberal groups" into Google.
GOP congressman hits back against Dem claim that IRS targeted progressives, too
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp slapped down Democratic claims that progressive groups were also improperly targeted by the IRS between 2010 and 2012, stifling a growing media narrative that the IRS targeting was not partisan.
The term “progressive” appeared on a heavily redacted November 2010 ”Be On the Lookout” (BOLO) list released this week by Ways and Means Democrats. The term was used to help the IRS identify political activity that “may not be appropriate” among 501(c)(3) charities eligible for tax-deductible contributions.
However, the targeting of conservative groups largely focused on applicants for 501(c)(4) “social welfare organization” status, which shields groups from having to disclose their donors. The scrutinized “progressive” applications were not required to be sent to a special IRS unit for additional review — but tea party and conservative applications were subjected to extra scrutiny by 12 different working groups within the IRS. Tea Party groups were also marked for extra scrutiny in the same document.
Nevertheless, the New York Times reported, “taken together, the documents seem to change the terms of a scandal that exploded over accusations that the I.R.S. had tried to stifle a nascent conservative political movement. Instead, the dispute now revolves around questionable sorting tactics used by I.R.S. application screeners.”
While Camp’s Ways and Means staff noted that progressive groups were also featured on an IRS’ BOLO list, alongside tea party groups, it pointed out that only tea party groups had their donors threatened, had confidential information leaked, were sent “inappropriate and intrusive” questions, and had their applications delayed for more than two years, according to currently available evidence.
Camp’s staff also noted that only tea party groups were mentioned as having been targeted in a Treasury Inspector General’s report on the IRS scandal. Nearly 100 conservative or tea party applications were given extra scrutiny, according to the IG report.
Ways and Means Democrats did not call any progressive victims of IRS targeting at the committee’s hearing on IRS victims.
“I do want to note that the minority was given the opportunity to call a witness, but did not present a witness that had been affected by taxpayer activity — by IRS activity. So, that’s why there is no minority witness at the table today,” Camp said at the June 4 Ways and Means hearing, in response to Democratic Rep. Ron Kind’s complaint that no progressive victims were present at the hearing. Camp later said at the hearing that he welcomed potential progressive victims to come forward, but that no progressive groups had done so by June 4.
“It is one thing to flag a group, it is quite another to repeatedly target and abuse conservative groups. Tea Party groups were not just on a BOLO they (1) were sent intrusive and inappropriate questions, (2) had their donors threatened with gift taxes and (3) had their confidential information leaked,” said Ways and Means Committee spokesperson Sarah Swinehart.
“The Committee has welcomed all groups, regardless of affiliation, that feel they may have been targeted for extra scrutiny to come forward. The Ways and Means Committee will continue to investigate the IRS’s inexcusable actions when the IRS comes to testify on the report this Thursday,” Swinehart added.
As The Daily Caller has previously reported, conservative groups and specific individuals across the country were harassed by the IRS, which demanded personal information on conservative college interns, conservative groups’ training materials, and even the content of religious groups’ prayers.
d-usa wrote: First you didn't hear anything about this targeting of liberal groups, then you post what is literally the first rebuttal of the story that I come across when typing "IRS targeting liberal groups" into Google.
GOP congressman hits back against Dem claim that IRS targeted progressives, too
House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp slapped down Democratic claims that progressive groups were also improperly targeted by the IRS between 2010 and 2012, stifling a growing media narrative that the IRS targeting was not partisan.
The term “progressive” appeared on a heavily redacted November 2010 ”Be On the Lookout” (BOLO) list released this week by Ways and Means Democrats. The term was used to help the IRS identify political activity that “may not be appropriate” among 501(c)(3) charities eligible for tax-deductible contributions.
However, the targeting of conservative groups largely focused on applicants for 501(c)(4) “social welfare organization” status, which shields groups from having to disclose their donors. The scrutinized “progressive” applications were not required to be sent to a special IRS unit for additional review — but tea party and conservative applications were subjected to extra scrutiny by 12 different working groups within the IRS. Tea Party groups were also marked for extra scrutiny in the same document.
Nevertheless, the New York Times reported, “taken together, the documents seem to change the terms of a scandal that exploded over accusations that the I.R.S. had tried to stifle a nascent conservative political movement. Instead, the dispute now revolves around questionable sorting tactics used by I.R.S. application screeners.”
While Camp’s Ways and Means staff noted that progressive groups were also featured on an IRS’ BOLO list, alongside tea party groups, it pointed out that only tea party groups had their donors threatened, had confidential information leaked, were sent “inappropriate and intrusive” questions, and had their applications delayed for more than two years, according to currently available evidence.
Camp’s staff also noted that only tea party groups were mentioned as having been targeted in a Treasury Inspector General’s report on the IRS scandal. Nearly 100 conservative or tea party applications were given extra scrutiny, according to the IG report.
Ways and Means Democrats did not call any progressive victims of IRS targeting at the committee’s hearing on IRS victims.
“I do want to note that the minority was given the opportunity to call a witness, but did not present a witness that had been affected by taxpayer activity — by IRS activity. So, that’s why there is no minority witness at the table today,” Camp said at the June 4 Ways and Means hearing, in response to Democratic Rep. Ron Kind’s complaint that no progressive victims were present at the hearing. Camp later said at the hearing that he welcomed potential progressive victims to come forward, but that no progressive groups had done so by June 4.
“It is one thing to flag a group, it is quite another to repeatedly target and abuse conservative groups. Tea Party groups were not just on a BOLO they (1) were sent intrusive and inappropriate questions, (2) had their donors threatened with gift taxes and (3) had their confidential information leaked,” said Ways and Means Committee spokesperson Sarah Swinehart.
“The Committee has welcomed all groups, regardless of affiliation, that feel they may have been targeted for extra scrutiny to come forward. The Ways and Means Committee will continue to investigate the IRS’s inexcusable actions when the IRS comes to testify on the report this Thursday,” Swinehart added.
As The Daily Caller has previously reported, conservative groups and specific individuals across the country were harassed by the IRS, which demanded personal information on conservative college interns, conservative groups’ training materials, and even the content of religious groups’ prayers.
Dude stop. You can't just go posting things because they're true.
However, the targeting of conservative groups largely focused on applicants for 501(c)(4) “social welfare organization” status, which shields groups from having to disclose their donors.
Were they targeted because they were conservative, or because they were political? Were said organizations required to submit a list of donors, or did they do it of their own volition?
A second IRS employee summoned to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee invoked the Fifth Amendment on Wednesday and refused to answer questions — a flashback to Lois Lerner, who did the same during a hearing on the agency’s scandal last month.
Gregory Roseman, who worked as a deputy director of acquisitions at the IRS, exercised his constitutional rights when Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) started interrogating him about panel findings that he helped a friend procure potentially $500 million worth of IRS contracts.
“On the advice of the counsel, I respectfully decline to answer any questions and invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent,” Roseman said when Issa asked to whom he reported at the IRS.
Issa continued: “Mr. Roseman, when did you first become aware of a company called Strong Castle Inc.?”
Roseman, who has been removed from his position pending the outcome of an inspector general investigation, repeated his first statement.
The panel on Tuesday released a report alleging that Roseman’s “cozy relationship” with Strong Castle Inc.’s president, Braulio Castillo,
helped the company secure $500 million in potential contracts.
But unlike Lerner, who triggered the IRS scandal by acknowledging the agency wrongly targeted tea party groups applying for a tax exemption, Roseman didn’t offer any type of statement before invoking his constitutional rights.
The exchange differed from Lerner’s interaction with the committee. Before she took the Fifth, the former head of the IRS tax exempt division that oversaw the targeting of conservative groups told Issa’s panel on May 22 that she didn’t do anything wrong.
That triggered debate about whether she waived her rights.
The panel will vote Friday on whether they think Lerner, now suspended from her IRS duties, waived her constitutional protections.
Issa seemed to accept Roseman’s invocation, but Roseman still hiccuped.
Before the panel took testimony from witnesses, Issa said he “does not want to have anyone waiving their right accidentally, involuntarily or in any other way” and asked the panel if anyone wanted to invoke the Fifth.
Roseman piped up, but seemed to flub his words: “Sir, I do intend to waive mine — I, I intend to invoke my Fifth Amendment rig
ht.”
Issa continued: “Mr. Roseman, when did you first become aware of a company called Strong Castle Inc.?”
Roseman, who has been removed from his position pending the outcome of an inspector general investigation, repeated his first statement.
The panel on Tuesday released a report alleging that Roseman’s “cozy relationship” with Strong Castle Inc.’s president, Braulio Castillo, helped the company secure $500 million in potential contracts.
But unlike Lerner, who triggered the IRS scandal by acknowledging the agency wrongly targeted tea party groups applying for a tax exemption, Roseman didn’t offer any type of statement before invoking his constitutional rights.
The exchange differed from Lerner’s interaction with the committee. Before she took the Fifth, the former head of the IRS tax exempt division that oversaw the targeting of conservative groups told Issa’s panel on May 22 that she didn’t do anything wrong.
That triggered debate about whether she waived her rights.
The panel will vote Friday on whether they think Lerner, now suspended from her IRS duties, waived her constitutional protections.
Issa seemed to accept Roseman’s invocation, but Roseman still hiccuped.
Before the panel took testimony from witnesses, Issa said he “does not want to have anyone waiving their right accidentally, involuntarily or in any other way” and asked the panel if anyone wanted to invoke the Fifth.
Roseman piped up, but seemed to flub his words: “Sir, I do intend to waive mine — I, I intend to invoke my Fifth Amendment right.”
When a 501(c)(3) hosts a Presidential campaign event it would be hard to claim it didn't engage in political action which is, of course, not permitted.
When a 501(c)(3) hosts a Presidential campaign event it would be hard to claim it didn't engage in political action which is, of course, not permitted.
d-usa wrote: MMFA is not the same organization as the Media Matters Action Network, which is organized as a 501(c)(4) and not a (3).
True, but I would argue that a 501(c)(3) which funds a 501(c)(4) that engages in political activity is, itself, engaged in political activity.
Isn't that the whole reason why so many places made both of them. People donate to the one that doesn't have to disclose donors, and that organization then makes donations to the one that has to disclose.
So Organization A reports "we got lots of donations from Organization B" and organization B reports "we got money, it's secret though".
Which is stupid in and off itself, despite the whole "who is targeting who" and "who is engaged in what" thing going on.
Liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status faced less IRS scrutiny than Tea Party groups, according to the Treasury inspector general.
Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, told Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) in a letter dated Wednesday that the IRS did not use inappropriate criteria to scrutinize groups with “progressives” in their name seeking tax-exempt status.
“Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill.
The inspector general also stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention.
“While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of Tea Party and other related criteria we described in our report, including employee interviews, e-mails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that ‘progressives’ was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention,” George wrote to Levin, the top Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
George and his office have faced criticism in recent days after it emerged that its audit was tasked with looking into merely whether conservative groups faced tough IRS scrutiny. Documents released this week showed other groups — including liberal and non-partisan organizations — also received scrutiny from the IRS, and Democrats have suggested this wasn't noted in the ensuing scandal because of the IG's focus on conservative groups.
George insisted that his office did not limit its audit to Tea Party groups.
George’s letter adds a new twist to an IRS controversy that still has only seemed to get more muddy this week, and still has major unanswered questions – including why the targeting of groups went on for so long and why IRS officials declined to inform Congress.
Levin and other Democrats have said this week that new information from the IRS that shows that the term “progressives” were on an agency watch list raised serious questions about the audit. Democrats have added that the “flawed” report from George has allowed Republicans to overly politicize the IRS’s treatment of groups seeking tax-exempt status.
Progressive groups that sought tax-exempt status also have been coming forward more frequently in recent weeks to outline what they saw as overbearing treatment from the IRS. But all week, Republicans have been saying that – while both groups from across the political spectrum had been flagged by so-called “be on the lookout,” or BOLO, lists – the IRS treated Tea Party and conservative groups more harshly.
Levin on Thursday said the IG is now changing its story. He said the IG has inconsistent responses to Congress.
“Congress deserved to know that ‘progressives’ were on the IRS screening list during the time of the audit and progressive organizations were in the review group," Levin said in a statement Thursday. "These omissions changed the nature of the investigation and the IG’s testimony is not consistent with his written response.”
Republicans argue the preponderance of evidence suggests conservative groups were singled out for abuse by the IRS.
"At this point, the evidence shows us that conservative groups were not only flagged, but targeted and abused by the IRS," said Sarah Swinehart, a spokeswoman for Ways and Mean Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich).
"As we gather the facts, we will follow them wherever they lead us. Chairman Camp encourages all groups, regardless of political affiliation, that feel they may have been targeted to come forward and share their story."
George’s letter says that the “progressive” identifier on BOLO lists was not in a section used for selecting potential political cases, and that the IRS had developed inappropriate criteria to flag Tea Party applicants as potentially political.
Democrats on Levin's panel and media outlets have also said that some of the 298 groups George examined for his audit were liberal, something Democrats have slammed the inspector general for not mentioning.
But in his letter, George said he did not think it would be appropriate for a nonpartisan inspector general to make the call on what constitutes a liberal or conservative group.
Easy E wrote: So Whembly, you don;t care about IRS targetting perse, you only care about whether you can hang it on the President and the Democrats as a scandal?
Meh... I seriously doubt the President said "Hey you guys at the IRS... make life difficult for my political opponents would ya !"
I think it's far more likely that the inner mechanism of the President's Re-election campaign may have orchestrated it... hoping to make his/her mark as a valuable political behind-the-scenes operative.
Obama isn't going to be anywhere near impeached....
The Tea Party's fetish to abolishing the IRS is never gonna happen...
The GOP is shooting themselves in the foot with these scandals... it's going to blow over soon due to the public's short attention span...
Regardless... to fix this, I'd rather that the IRS get out of the whole granting the 501c3/501c4 business.
The House Oversight Committee on Friday approved a resolution that says Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right last month by claiming innocence during a congressional hearing.
The panel called Lerner to testify on May 14 about inappropriate screening and scrutiny the IRS had applied to groups seeking tax-exempt status.
Before invoking her privilege against self-incrimination, Lerner, whose lawyers have said she is part of a Justice Department criminal investigation, made a brief statement to the committee.
“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”
Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically the bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee — usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of documents
Subpoenas[edit]
Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full Committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the Chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.
As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[3] the Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its Chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.
The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[4] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, Courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, the Courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy.
Procedures[edit]
Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.
Inherent contempt[edit]
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation).
Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who had allowed clients to rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.[5]
MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken.[6][7]
Presidential pardons appear not to apply to a civil contempt procedure such as the above, since it is not an "offense against the United States" or against "the dignity of public authority."[8]
Statutory proceedings[edit]
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (July 2008)
Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia;[9] according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.
The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.[10]
While the law pronounces the duty of the U.S. Attorney is to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, some proponents of the unitary executive theory believe that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President and that compelling the U.S. Attorney amounts to compelling the President himself. They believe that to allow Congress to force the President to take action against a subordinate following his directives would be a violation of the separation of powers and infringe on the power of the Executive branch. The legal basis for this belief, they contend, can be found in Federalist 49, in which James Madison wrote “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” This approach to government is commonly known as "departmentalism” or “coordinate construction”[citation needed]
Others believe that, under Article II, the principal duty of the President is to execute the law; that, under Article I, the law is what the lawmaker—e.g. Congress, in the case of statutory contempt—says it is and the Executive Branch cannot either define the meaning of the law (such powers of legislation being reserved to Congress) or interpret the law (such powers being reserved to the several Federal Courts); any attempt by the Executive to define or interpret the law would be a violation of the separation of powers; the Executive may only—and is obligated to—execute the law consistent with its definition and interpretation; and if the law specifies a duty on one of the President's subordinates, then the President must "take care" to see that the duty specified in the law is executed. To avoid or neglect the performance of this duty would not be faithful execution of the law, and would thus be a violation of the separation of powers, which the Congress and the Courts have several options to remedy.
Civil procedures[edit]
Senate Rules authorize the Senate to direct the Senate Legal Counsel to file a civil action against any private individual found in contempt. Upon motion by the Senate, the federal district court issues another order for a person to comply with Senate process. If the subject then refuses to comply with the Court's order, the person may be cited for contempt of court and may incur sanctions imposed by the Court. The process has been used at least six times; but the civil procedure can only be used against Executive branch officials "in certain limited circumstances."
d-usa wrote: MMFA is not the same organization as the Media Matters Action Network, which is organized as a 501(c)(4) and not a (3).
True, but I would argue that a 501(c)(3) which funds a 501(c)(4) that engages in political activity is, itself, engaged in political activity.
Isn't that the whole reason why so many places made both of them. People donate to the one that doesn't have to disclose donors, and that organization then makes donations to the one that has to disclose.
So Organization A reports "we got lots of donations from Organization B" and organization B reports "we got money, it's secret though".
Which is stupid in and off itself, despite the whole "who is targeting who" and "who is engaged in what" thing going on.
d-usa wrote: MMFA is not the same organization as the Media Matters Action Network, which is organized as a 501(c)(4) and not a (3).
True, but I would argue that a 501(c)(3) which funds a 501(c)(4) that engages in political activity is, itself, engaged in political activity.
Isn't that the whole reason why so many places made both of them. People donate to the one that doesn't have to disclose donors, and that organization then makes donations to the one that has to disclose.
So Organization A reports "we got lots of donations from Organization B" and organization B reports "we got money, it's secret though".
Which is stupid in and off itself, despite the whole "who is targeting who" and "who is engaged in what" thing going on.
Isn't that basically laundering money, then?
Arguably... but, this form's is legal here in the states.
The House Oversight Committee on Friday approved a resolution that says Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right last month by claiming innocence during a congressional hearing.
The panel called Lerner to testify on May 14 about inappropriate screening and scrutiny the IRS had applied to groups seeking tax-exempt status.
Before invoking her privilege against self-incrimination, Lerner, whose lawyers have said she is part of a Justice Department criminal investigation, made a brief statement to the committee.
“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”
Good to know they are aligned with the SCOTUS that the 5th doesn't mean much anymore.
The House Oversight Committee on Friday approved a resolution that says Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right last month by claiming innocence during a congressional hearing.
The panel called Lerner to testify on May 14 about inappropriate screening and scrutiny the IRS had applied to groups seeking tax-exempt status.
Before invoking her privilege against self-incrimination, Lerner, whose lawyers have said she is part of a Justice Department criminal investigation, made a brief statement to the committee.
“I have not done anything wrong,” she said. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”
Good to know they are aligned with the SCOTUS that the 5th doesn't mean much anymore.
Here's the problem...
In a court room, Lerner's response is a textbook case of waiving your 5th.
However, what's muddy here is this is in Congress. Does it apply in the same manner?
Grey Templar wrote: I don't think so. Congress has its own rules so what works in a normal court room won't necessarily work there.
Yeah... unless, there's some good dirt on Lerner, she'd be advised to shutup and say I invoke my 5th repeatedly.
In other news, the Chicago Tribune Op-Ed calling for Special Prosecuter:
"It's inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it. I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives. ... I'll do everything in my power to make sure nothing like this happens again by holding the responsible parties accountable ...."
— President Barack Obama condemning "misconduct" at the Internal Revenue Service, May 15, 2013
All of us understand that IRS misconduct, right? And we know which parties Obama needs to hold accountable. It's obvious, right? End of story:
We learned at the get-go of this scandal that, during a long run-up to the 2012 presidential election, IRS officials extensively hassled conservative groups that had applied for tax-exempt status. Congressional Republicans pounced on this as an attempt to hijack the election.
But wait. Early last week we read that the agency used keywords such as "progressive" to target left-leaning groups, too, for extra scrutiny. "New IRS chief: Lists targeted more than tea partyers," said the Chicago Tribune. "Documents Show Liberals in I.R.S. Dragnet," said The New York Times. Congressional Democrats pounced on the suggestion that the agency had treated conservatives and liberals with equal indignity.
But wait some more. On Wednesday a Treasury Department inspector general undercut the equal-abuse argument: From May 2010 to May 2012, the IRS had flagged for added scrutiny six of the 20 applicant groups with words such as "progressive" in their titles. "In comparison, our audit found that 100 percent of the (292) tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases" — that is, groups possibly too political to merit tax-exempt status. "While we have multiple sources of information corroborating the use of tea party and other related criteria," wrote Inspector General J. Russell George, "including employee interviews, emails and other documents, we found no indication in any of these other materials that 'progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political-campaign intervention."
Translation: The IRS was overwhelmingly one-sided in scrutinizing applications. And the agency evidently was completely one-sided in subjecting only conservative groups to long processing delays and lengthy, often peculiar requests. Example: The IRS asked an Iowa anti-abortion group "how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood, are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3) ...."
So that's where things stand — until fresh reporting, a document leak or perhaps a confession sends the story in some new direction. But seven weeks into this scandal, the fact most Americans know best is that ... they still don't know much that's definitive. The murky intrigue over who provoked what at this agency has become a playpen for politicians. Three among many crucial questions still scream for answers:
•Did someone nudge IRS employees to hassle certain groups or did agency officials spontaneously decide to do that?
•Inspector General George has testified that in June 2012, five months before the election, he told top Treasury Department officials of his probe into IRS targeting. Did his news, with its potential to rock the presidential campaign, stop atop Treasury — or did it make its way even higher in the administration?
•At multiple points in 2012, why did top IRS officials repeatedly mislead Congress by not disclosing — in response to highly specific questions — that the agency was targeting conservative groups?
We can only speculate on which tools will unlock the grimy secrets of this egregious misuse of government authority. An ongoing self-examination by the IRS is laughably untrustworthy. The U.S. Department of Justice also is on the case.
But as we wrote May 23, many Americans won't be much interested in what one arm of the Obama administration concludes about the conduct of other arms — the IRS, the Treasury and possibly the White House. There are times when only a special prosecutor has the independence and credibility to resolve such a politically fraught matter.
Why hasn't Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor? The White House, too, should be clamoring for one: The feds are only three months from enrolling Americans in Obamacare, a program that relies on citizens' willingness to have the IRS even more involved in the financial details of their lives.
We applauded when Obama said he would make sure there will be no such future scandal. But lofty pledges aren't enough. The president and his underlings ought to be instructing a special prosecutor to unravel the still mysterious scandal that confronts them today.
I'm not so convinced that Special Prosecuter is needed... but, eh... who knows.
Arguably... but, this form's is legal here in the states.
And it is legal to target groups according to whether or not they are engaging political activity (as a 501(c)(3)), or primarily engaging in a political activity (as a 501(c)(4))*.
The majority of your objection has been predicated on moral outrage, so where is the moral outrage over legalized "money laundering"?
Asking for IRS heads to roll accomplishes nothing beyond the achievement of catharsis, as it does not alter the fundamental deficiencies within the body of law it enforces.
*Both of which necessarily involve considering the terminology defining the organization.
Wonder what the RS going to do to improve their image. Granted the authorization of the bonuses didn't go over well. Wonder what the next federal department going to go under the scope for screwing up.
Arguably... but, this form's is legal here in the states.
And it is legal to target groups according to whether or not they are engaging political activity (as a 501(c)(3)), or primarily engaging in a political activity (as a 501(c)(4))*.
Sweet jeebus dogma... really.
Explicitly tell me that you are DEFENDING the IRS. I want to see you type that.
The majority of your objection has been predicated on moral outrage, so where is the moral outrage over legalized "money laundering"?
My outrage is this... the fething President, the fething Treasury Head, and the fething IRS Directors said what they did was wrong and partisan.
Asking for IRS heads to roll accomplishes nothing beyond the achievement of catharsis, as it does not alter the fundamental deficiencies within the body of law it enforces.
The hell you say. I want fething consequences if they're found to break the law. Otherwise, this same gak will continue to happen.
So, are you going to tell me that if the next time this happens and it's during a REPUBLICAN President administration, are you going to defend the IRS actions with the same amount of gusto?
So, are you going to tell me that if the next time this happens and it's during a REPUBLICAN President administration, are you going to defend the IRS actions with the same amount of gusto?
Embattled IRS official Lois Lerner will not testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee unless she’s given immunity from prosecution, her lawyer told POLITICO Tuesday.
“They can obtain her testimony tomorrow by doing it the easy way … immunity,” William W. Taylor III said in a phone interview. “That’s the way to resolve all of this.”
The comments reflect the hard-line approach Lerner, the former head of the IRS division that scrutinized conservative groups, and her legal team are taking in defending her role in the agency’s scandal.
Taylor, a founding partner of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, is even shrugging off the possibility that the full House might vote to hold Lerner in contempt.
“None of this matters,” he said. “I mean, nobody likes to be held in contempt of Congress, of course, but the real question is one that we’re fairly confident about, and I don’t think any district judge in the country would hold that she waived.”
The oversight panel voted along party lines last week that Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights at a May 22 hearing when she boldly declared her innocence in the IRS scandal and said she violated no laws — then invoked her constitutional protections to ward off self-incriminating questions from lawmakers.
Republicans immediately argued that Lerner forfeited her Fifth Amendment right by speaking and they should be allowed to question her opening statement.
Legal experts disagree about whether she actually did.
But in the eyes of the committee, Lerner — who was placed on administrative leave after refusing the new IRS leader’s request to resign — is obligated to now answer questions related to her earlier statement.
“The committee is entitled to Ms. Lerner’s full and truthful testimony without further conditions,” said panel spokesman Frederick Hill in a statement to POLITICO. “If, however, Ms. Lerner’s attorney is interested in discussing limited immunity, the committee will listen.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), a senior oversight Republican helping oversee the IRS investigation, said the panel is still hopeful she’ll come to the committee on her own free will, arguing that questions of immunity and contempt are “down the road.”
“We hope she comes in and gives us the truth and answers questions,” Jordan said in a brief phone interview Tuesday. “If that doesn’t happen, then you cross the next bridge. … If she says, ‘No, I’m going to come in and assert my Fifth Amendment rights again and not going to speak,’ then you think about what the other options are.”
Oversight Republicans have not yet decided when or how to recall Lerner, but if she refuses to answer questions on her proclamation of innocence, they say she could face contempt charges.
Taylor, however, said he is not afraid of that threat and is willing to take the issue to federal court if necessary.
If Lerner is held in contempt, Taylor notes that a federal judge will have the final say about whether she waived her constitutional protection. That’s because criminal contempt charges go to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for potential prosecution.
The Oversight committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), could initiate civil proceedings against Lerner on its own initiative.
But such an option would delay Lerner’s testimony for months, if not longer, lessening her value to the panel’s IRS probe.
Even if Lerner is found in the wrong, she’ll simply testify and it won’t be a huge deal, Taylor says.
“If the court finds that she didn’t waive, then it’s over, and if the court finds that she did and orders her to testify, then she goes to testify,” Taylor said, later, adding that there is “no danger under any circumstances of her going to jail.”
“In the House, it’s criminal contempt only,” he said.
So if the court agrees with the House’s contempt charge she could get “up to a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail,” he said.
Robert Walker, former chief counsel for both the House and Senate ethics committees, agreed with Taylor’s assertion that Lerner didn’t waive her rights.
“The question of whether in this setting, in a congressional hearing where the witness has been forced to testify, I think the weight of the authorities indicates there is some leeway for the witness to make some statement — some very general statement, provided it doesn’t get into specific facts — there is some leeway for a witness to do that before they can be said to have waived their Fifth Amendment privilege,” Walker said.
In a 1958 Supreme Court case on the Fifth Amendment, the high court noted that the defendant “relies on decisions holding that witnesses in civil proceedings and before congressional committees do not waive the [Fifth Amendment] privilege by denials and partial disclosures, but only by testimony that itself incriminates.”
And witnesses in previous hearings — for instance, in hearings on organized crime in the 1950s — have issued broad statements denying any wrongdoing, while then asserting their Fifth Amendment rights, a move later upheld by a federal court, according to legal records and press reports.
But Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor and defense attorney during O.J. Simpson’s criminal trial, says Lerner’s statement was not broad but specific and, if he were her lawyer, he “would never had allowed” her to say what she did.
He thinks she waived her right not to answer questions only related to her opening statement but contends that the panel has no legal standing whatsoever for saying she must answer questions on the entire IRS investigation as a whole.
Wolfensberger doesn’t think the matter will necessarily get to court. That’s because the Justice Department doesn’t have to take the matter there, he said.
“There’s nothing that obligates the executive branch to move forward and to take a [criminal contempt] case to court,” he said — adding that that’s exactly what happened when the House held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt last spring. The Justice Department and the oversight committee are now engaged in a legal battle in federal civil court.
The Bush administration also fought the House Judiciary Committee in federal court over the issue of whether senior presidential aides are covered by executive privilege and can be subpoenaed to testify. The two sides eventually reached a compromise agreement after the House held both in contempt.
The Justice Department would have another reason for passing on a criminal case against Lerner, Wolfensberger said: They’re doing their own investigation into the IRS scandal.
“The Justice Department would probably say, ‘We have a conflict here because this is under criminal investigation so this will be defeating our own purposes by trying to pursue this further.’”
Legal experts told POLITICO the more likely possibility is the panel and Taylor come to an agreement about immunity, which would need to be approved by the full Oversight committee.
Hill said the panel is open to pitches from Taylor about “limited” immunity that would allow her to testify without fear that her answers could be used against her.
“They can always reach out to the committee and basically begin the discussion about a limited immunity agreement,” Hill said.
But the oversight panel has not reached out to Taylor — and Taylor is not reaching out to them.
“If they had some interest in having her testify, they would certainly call me … because I don’t have anything to propose to them,” Taylor said.
My take... grant her full immunity provided that her statements are verified.
ruh-oh... things might just get kicked up to the next gear:
Potentially explosive development in IRS scandals
One of the most important and so-far least noted threads in the IRS sandal cloth is the inexplicable remark made by Austan Goolsbee, at the time the Chairman of the White Council of Economic Advisors about the taxes paid by the Koch brothers - arch villains in the Manichean delusions of the American left - that would require his knowledge of their confidential tax returns. Did the White House senior staff illegally browse through the tax records of their political enemies? The Washington Free Beacon has been trying to find out, and uncovered an interesting response:
The Treasury Department on Wednesday refused to confirm or deny the existence of an inspector general report investigating whether or not former White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee illegally accessed tax information on the Koch brothers.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Washington Free Beacon, declined to acknowledge the existence of the report.
"With regard to your request for documents pertaining to a third party, TIGTA can neither admit nor deny the existence of responsive records," said in its response. "Your request seeks access to the types of documents for which there is no public interest that outweighs the privacy interests established and protected by the FOIA (5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(7)(C) and (b)(6))."
Former White House Council of Economic Advisers chairman Austan Goolsbee sparked a mini-scandal in 2010 when he told reporters during a background press briefing that Koch Industries-the company of libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch-paid no income taxes.
The American public deserves answers on this potentially serious scandal. The Congressional committees investigating the IRS scandals must start pressing the question on Goolsbee, who has now returned to the University of Chicago. I rather doubt he would turn out to be a stand-up guy, should an indictment be looming over his head. He might even be a position to let the public know what the president knew, and when did he know it.
To be sure, "no comment" does not mean affirmation, but it obviously does not mean denial on an open question -- whether or not a direct advisor of the president illegally accessed tax files.
Help me out here... why wouldn't you deny that happened?
Help me out here... why wouldn't you deny that happened?
Deny what? That Goolsbee stated Koch Industries paid no income taxes, or that an inspector general report regarding Goolsbee existed?
Assuming you mean the latter: the denial of a FOIA request entails the refusal to disseminate information. If TIGTA were to say such a report did not exist, that would entail the dissemination of information.
whembly wrote: ruh-oh... things might just get kicked up to the next gear:
Potentially explosive development in IRS scandals
One of the most important and so-far least noted threads in the IRS sandal cloth is the inexplicable remark made by Austan Goolsbee, at the time the Chairman of the White Council of Economic Advisors about the taxes paid by the Koch brothers - arch villains in the Manichean delusions of the American left - that would require his knowledge of their confidential tax returns. Did the White House senior staff illegally browse through the tax records of their political enemies? The Washington Free Beacon has been trying to find out, and uncovered an interesting response:
The Treasury Department on Wednesday refused to confirm or deny the existence of an inspector general report investigating whether or not former White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee illegally accessed tax information on the Koch brothers.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Washington Free Beacon, declined to acknowledge the existence of the report.
"With regard to your request for documents pertaining to a third party, TIGTA can neither admit nor deny the existence of responsive records," said in its response. "Your request seeks access to the types of documents for which there is no public interest that outweighs the privacy interests established and protected by the FOIA (5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(7)(C) and (b)(6))."
Former White House Council of Economic Advisers chairman Austan Goolsbee sparked a mini-scandal in 2010 when he told reporters during a background press briefing that Koch Industries-the company of libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch-paid no income taxes.
The American public deserves answers on this potentially serious scandal. The Congressional committees investigating the IRS scandals must start pressing the question on Goolsbee, who has now returned to the University of Chicago. I rather doubt he would turn out to be a stand-up guy, should an indictment be looming over his head. He might even be a position to let the public know what the president knew, and when did he know it.
To be sure, "no comment" does not mean affirmation, but it obviously does not mean denial on an open question -- whether or not a direct advisor of the president illegally accessed tax files.
Help me out here... why wouldn't you deny that happened?
The only reasons that I can think right now (before I've had my coffee) as to why you wouldn't outright deny that an adviser to the POTUS had illicit access to tax records is;
- hoping that the problem blows over
- trying to get all the facts before making any statement
If called to testify I can see someone else looking to plead the Fifth, possibly hoping for immunity.
Lois Lerner, the IRS’s director of tax-exempt organizations who is overseeing the investigation, says many schools are rethinking how and what they report to the government. Receiving a thick questionnaire from the IRS, she says, is a “behavior changer.”
Freedom Works had a timeline of the IRS scandal here, and it’s interesting to see how Lerner’s quote fits into the beginning of that timeline. The entry in bold is my personal addition to the timeline based on the quote above:
1 March, 2010 – IRS officials start targeting organizations with “tea party”, “patriot”, and “9-12″ in their names.
27 June, 2011 – Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Operations, learns of the inappropriate targeting. She initiates an audit of the office involved, but the targeting continues.
17 November, 2011 – Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Operations, tells Businessweek that receiving a thick questionnaire from the IRS is a “behavior changer.”
Staffers preparing for the return of Lois Lerner to the witness chair in Congress, please take note.
Doesn't sound like there is an agenda at work there at all..... Instead of refusing them just swamp them with paperwork and unwarranted requests and hope the withdraw their applications.
Of course it is a "behavior changer", why would any organization want to continually receive applications it would eventually deny in accordance with policy?
Also, I am wondering why Whembly didn't openly quote the Businessweek article*:
Harvard University owns a hotel that overlooks the Charles River and charges up to $300 a night for a room. The country’s richest higher-ed institution doesn’t pay a cent in taxes on revenue from the high-rise in Boston, Mass., and hasn’t for at least five years. Now, the Federal government wants to know: Are taxpayers getting shorted?
Not-for-profit universities are exempt from paying taxes on tuition or other money that relates directly to their educational mission. But the government has long required them to pay up on a class of revenue known as “unrelated business income.” That’s a broad category, encompassing college-owned bookstores, restaurants, sports arenas, and other venues that sell goods and services to the public. Although the regulation has been in place since 1950, the IRS has stepped up enforcement only recently. According to public tax filings and IRS correspondence obtained by Bloomberg News, more than 30 universities are coming under increased scrutiny. The IRS declined to disclose a complete list of the schools under review, but Notre Dame, Purdue, the University of Texas at Austin, Texas A&M, the University of North Carolina, the University of Georgia, Lamar University, the University of Central Florida, Yeshiva University, Suffolk University, and Harvard confirmed the IRS is eyeing them. The government is looking into whether schools improperly claimed tax-exempt status for taxable businesses.
John Walda, president and CEO of the National Association of College and University Business Officers, a trade group in Washington, says the schools have nothing to hide. “Our members are in compliance and doing their best to abide by the spirit and the letter of IRS regulations,” says Walda.
Others suggest some colleges may have gotten creative with their accounting, leaving plenty for the IRS to inspect. “The joke is they are the world’s worst businessmen because they are always ‘losing’ money,” says Paul Streckfus, a former IRS auditor who publishes EO Tax Journal, an electronic newsletter. “They are making money,” Streckfus contends, “or they wouldn’t be doing this.”
The inquiry began in October 2008, when the IRS sent a 33-page questionnaire to 400 schools asking for details about their noneducational business ventures. After checking the schools’ responses against their tax filings from previous years, IRS officials announced in a preliminary report last year that most of the colleges appeared to be collecting revenue that they considered exempt but which the agency said could be subject to taxes. The auditors are specifically investigating whether any of the schools improperly reported losses on the outside businesses, allowing them to avoid paying taxes.
Harvard reported to the IRS that its noneducational enterprises, including the hotel on the Charles River, lost $1.4 million from 2009 to 2010, according to the university’s tax filings. Because of the losses, Harvard paid no taxes on its outside businesses. That has been the case for at least five years, the school’s annual tax records show. Harvard spokesman John Longbrake declined to comment.
Another school under review, the University of Georgia, also runs a number of outside business ventures, including a 200-room hotel, a health-center, an eight-acre athletic complex with three pools, and an 18-hole golf course. In 2006 the school reported to the IRS that it operated just two for-profit business ventures. After the IRS started asking questions, Georgia bumped that number up to 15, according to the university’s tax records. Wendy Jones, a spokeswoman for the university, declined to comment.
Lois Lerner, the IRS’s director of tax-exempt organizations who is overseeing the investigation, says many schools are rethinking how and what they report to the government. Receiving a thick questionnaire from the IRS, she says, is a “behavior changer.”
dogma wrote: Of course it is a "behavior changer", why would any organization want to continually receive applications it would eventually deny in accordance with policy?
But, that's the crux here isn't it? They weren't denying it.
Also, I am wondering why Whembly didn't openly quote the Businessweek article*:
Erm... you want me to post the article and not just link.
Others complain me of posting the whole thing and not just linking...
At first, I was appalled by this. Then I followed th story, and now I think the IRS has nothign to be ashamed of. They were doing exactly what they are supposed to do, and they weren't really targetting anyone in an unjust way.
There is just way to much noise to content ratio right now to be sure exactly what is going on though.
I still think they crossed a line, but I've gotten to where I'm ready to just stop arguing about the whole thing, wait a couple months for all the investigations to roost and read them.
Erm... you want me to post the article and not just link.
I would prefer it if you didn't , I assume unintentionally, represent the article you quoted as one which it is not. To my reading a quote that is immediately preceded by a source is ostensibly from that source.
New testimony from IRS officials claims that Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS's Exempt Organizations division, instructed employees to send Tea Party group applications for tax-exempt status through a multi-layered review that included the IRS chief counsel's office, which is led by Obama appointee William Wilkins.
Lerner "sent me email saying ... when these cases need to go through multi-tier review and they will eventually have to [through her staff] and the chief counsel's office," said Michael Seto, the head of the IRS unit that was handling Tea Party applications.
This new testimony suggests that the decision to target Tea Party organizations came from Lerner herself, and that Wilkins' office was closely involved in some of the applications.
Tax law specialist Carter Hull, who works for Seto, testified that despite his 48 years of experience approving or denying tax-exempt status applications, he was told in the winter of 2010 that, at the direction of Lerner, the applications would need to be sent to the chief counsel's office for further review. Hull said never before in his nearly five-decade career had he been told to send applications up the pipeline.
ull testified that the IRS chief counsel's office told him that updated information was needed for the applications. Hull found this surprising because he had already provided updated information when he made his recommendations of whether to approve or deny the applications. It was suggested he use a template to develop Tea Party applications, which Hull found impractical because every application was different.
Hull's supervisor, Ronald Shoemaker, told the committees about the additional information requested by the chief counsel's office, which included the applicants' 2010 election activities. This additional information caused the entire approval process to slow down.
Several congressmen, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., are requesting documents from the IRS relating to this new testimony. "As a part of this ongoing investigation, the Committees have learned that the IRS Chief Counsel's office in Washington, D.C. has been closely involved in some of the applications," Issa and others wrote in a letter to acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel. "Its involvement and demands for information about political activity during the 2010 election cycle appears to have caused systematic delays in the processing of Tea Party applications."
...
Ms. O'Donnell said she has reason to believe her political opponents were behind the scheme.
“An official with this investigation told me that there was evidence linking this inappropriate use of my tax records with the Delaware political leadership, Delaware political leaders on both sides of the aisle,” she said, though she declined to identify the official with whom she spoke.
Sorry... the report in the NYT (and other sources) said it was the General Counsel of the Treasury. That's what I referring to "senior officials".
It's okay I didn't include the obligatory winky face 
I gotcha now
